Repeatoffenders are the most troublesome of all lawbreakers for federal andlocal governments to manage. These criminals are viewed as inert toimprisonment as a method for conduct modification, and undeterred bythe possibility of serving time in prison. Thus, a longer prison termfor these offenders has a solid interest to policymakers and thesociety as a whole. This essay discusses the influence of opinionpolls on policy making and three-strike sentencing.
Researchwas conducted in Ohio aimed at verifying whether the opinion pollsshow any support for sentencing three-time offenders to lifeimprisonment. The research data confirms that global supportsurpasses explicit support for three-strikes sentencing. Recent pollscarried out both locally and nationally demonstrate the same level ofsupport for incarcerating three-time offenders for life without thepossibility of parole for a period of 25 years (Welsh & Harris,2016). Subjective reports show that in particular cases, the societymay fail to support and even might object to sentencing a repeatoffender to life in prison. Moreover, when evaluation of attitudesgoes deeper than universal opinion polls, they sometimes unveilpublic opinions that are less punishing. Simple ratings, like thoseobtainable from typical opinion polls, at times, induce governmentreactions. When the society is given a chance to consider additionaldata (for instance cost and potential implications), theirfeedback show support of a more thought out response to criminaloffenses (Welsh & Harris, 2016).
Thecommunity holds a general view that criminals who have had twoopportunities but continue to indulge in criminal offenses should beremoved from the street without leniency. Nonetheless, the society isnot demanding that all the three-time offenders be prisoned for life.Basing policies on global sentiments alone can result in correctionalpractices that the community is not in support of, in particular,situations (Birkland, 2014). Almost all the respondents from theresearch questions favored allowing exclusions to the lifetimeimprisonment recommended under three-strike rules. Particularly, thesociety is open to exemptions being made when lawbreakers pose littlethreat to the society, when magistrates would see a life verdict asunsuitable, and when penitentiary inmates make steps in treatment.
Policymakersrespond to a discernment based on an evaluation of global attitudesthat the society endorses the blanket use of three-strike rules forall three-time offenders. The research results show that ifpoliticians are willing to endorse policies that are consistent withthe society will, they should design three-strike recommendationsthat are closely outlined, comprising the most serious crimes thatallow flexibility and expert discretion by policy makers andcorrectional officials (Birkland, 2014).This approach may be utilizedto incarcerate dangerous criminals but will not be used in a stiffway that has unjust implications and will not afford the society asignificant enhancement of their security.
Inconclusion, the recent undertaking to pass three strike laws,policymakers often quote opinion polls that apparently show prevalentpublic support for these initiatives. Nevertheless, the societySurvey unveils that endorsement for three-strike laws is high whenthe people are asked general single-item queries, but reducessignificantly when the people are presented with particularcircumstances comprised under the law. Moreover, the society seemswilling to make exclusions to three-strike policies. The researchshows that the policymakers endorse those three-strike laws that theopinion polls recommend.
Birkland,T. A. (2014). An introduction to the policy process: Theories,concepts, and models of public policy making. Routledge.
Welsh,W. N., & Harris, P. W. (2016). Criminal Justice Policy andPlanning: Planned Change. Routledge.