I need you to reply to a classmates post. Their post will be below.
“Many times, a policy is made to address presumed causal relationships and it is later discovered that the factors are only correlated or have a weak causal relationship. An example of this is the three strikes laws that many states enacted in the early 1990s. For example, California changed its criminal sentencing law to create harsher punishments for repeat offenders, including a minimum sentence of 25 years to life for a three-time repeat offender (Brown & Jolivette, 2005). One of the rationales behind the policy was a causal relationship; a longer sentence, or the threat thereof, would deter offenders from committing additional crimes, thus reducing crime rates (Datta, 2017).
There have been many studies on the three strikes law and many argue that the laws did little to deter crime. Crime rates did go down, but many attribute this to increased incarceration. The laws incarcerated many more people for longer periods of time and, therefore, those individuals were not committing crimes during that time. However, many studies have found that the three strikes laws did little to deter criminals. In fact, a study by Kovandzic et al. found that the three strikes law actually increased the homicide rate (2004).
There were also other factors at play during the time the three strikes laws took effect. Throughout the country, crime rates decreased in the 90s, including in states without three strike laws. Additional factors also include a strong national economy and a reduction in handgun use (Brown & Jolivette, 2005). So the question becomes, would crime rates have decreased in the three strikes states even without the law? The evidence for a causal relationship isn’t quite there.”
The post I need you to reply to a classmates post. Their post will be below.
“Many times, appeared first on Solved Students Assignments.