Arguments Against Tough Sentencing Laws

An escape from the tyranny of an oppressive king was the cornerstone of the the founding fathers drafting of the Constitution. All men are created equal and in turn should be afforded equal justice. However, legislation from both the federal and state governments could threaten that very premise. Three strikes sentencing laws seek to break a cycle of recidivism from career criminals, but ensnare minorities and the poor at a disproportionate rate when compared to those not in need and whites in the United States. In order to understand the how these laws affect minorities and the poor it is important to first understand the history behind why governments pass such harsh sentencing laws. Equally important are the demographic statistics of the offenders and the crimes that fit the laws. …show more content…
While speculation about the rationale behind the legislation spanned from an increase in the number of gruesome crimes committed to extensive media coverage of a smaller number of crimes, Congress nevertheless enacted the scheme. The Act drew immediate criticism from both the liberal and conservative sides of the aisle for various reasons. Conservatives saw this as another piece of legislation that would increase government spending by having to care for the increased amount of incarcerated persons. Whereas liberals were afraid that a government mandated life imprisonment law would increase an already disproportionate racial imbalance in the federal prison system. In an effort to appease both, Congress ensured that the harsh punishment would only be given to those convicted of serious drug offenses and serious violent felonies. However, it is the very definition of what constitutes serious in the statutory language that could lend credence to the liberals’