Habitual Offender
Introduction
At many times individuals are engaged in various civil and criminal conflicts. The law recognizes that there are first time offenses that face less severe punishments. However, there are instances where the accused abuses his or her prerogative and continuously commits a crime or civil violations without decorum or fear of reprisal. In such cases, there are mechanisms where legal officers can prosecute such cases, and the courts are warranted to provide the maximum penalty that suits the offense. Legal practitioners term these individuals are repeat offenders while the law recognizes them as habitual offenders. Both criminal and civil suits treat habitual offenders as criminals. They are provided the maximum punishment by the courts whenever found to engage in any illegal or unlawful activities.
Definition
The Duhaime law dictionary defines “A person who is convicted and sentenced for crimes over some time and even after serving sentences of incarceration, demonstrates a propensity towards future criminal conduct’’ (Duhaime law par 1. However, US legal, a renowned legal advice service provider defines habitual offender as “a status usually given to a repeat felony offender. If a person has committed two or three previous felonies or numerous misdemeanors, they may be subject to being labeled a habitual offender” (US Legal par 1) These differences arise from the legal implication and emerging circumstances. However, the collective agreement across the globe is to be labeled, and habitual offender one must have committed crimes and violation repeatedly without the regard for low (Dunhaime Law Dictionary). It is noteworthy that habitual offenders include repeat felonies such as rape, murder, robbery, and robbery with violence, and repeat misdemeanors such as violations of parking and speeding tickets and pickpocketing.
Importance of Understanding Habitual Offense
Habitual offenders are categorized into two; they include repeated criminal offense and repeat criminal or misdemeanor acts. Repeated criminal offenses occur when an accused person engages in the same behavior over a specific period or in intervals. For instance, a person in this category is one who continuously violates parking tickets; another person in this category is a serial killer or rapist. This state involves committing the same criminal act consistently. Repeating criminal acts may lead to an increase in the sentence or punishment. (US Legal) A repeat criminal or misdemeanor offender involves engaging in different kinds of illegal activities or civil violations. Examples include violating a speeding ticket, then violating a parking ticket. Understanding habitual offenses ensure that an accused is can find a well-prepared defense depending on the activity (US Legal). Besides, it allows for the prevention and control of individuals from repeating crimes due to the fear of receiving a repeat offender label that is implicit and essential in determining a ruling by a judge.
Effect of Habitual offender Status
When an individual is branded a habitual offender, he risks the probability of receiving more severe and strict sentencing. There are two major reasons that courts have found to be the reason behind major offenses (Olson 55). They include mental illness and substance abuse. Repeat offenders are stated to show little regard to the rule of law, and as such, face severe punishment include underserved punishments.
Sentencing
Sentencing and punishment are highly reliant on the action of the crime. However, habitual offenders face the possibility of longer periods behind bars. Some states have enacted several fines to accompany repeat offenders (Okrent 75). Besides, they are forced into stricter and robust rehabilitation programs and, at times, forced supervision. Some states may even require relinquishing of properties involved in the criminal act or violations. For instance, a person may lose their vehicle if he or she is a repeat violator of parking or speeding tickets. Some activities that do not warrant a prison sentence may force a judge to declare a prison term judgment if the accused is a repeat offender (Olson 57). It is essential for the legal representative to the accused to consider and appeal against longer punishments.
Three Strike Law
The three-strikes law came into effect on 7th March 1994. It began as part of the US department of justice fight against gang-related and organized violence (Jenkins 15). The law states that a severe repeat felony offender with more than one-sentence receive a mandatory life sentence. The law was meant to deter individuals from engaging in criminal activities and punish leaders of organized crime groups who returned to illegal activities after serving prison time. There are at least twenty-eight states in the US that have implemented some aspect of the “three-strikes” law. In most states, clarification of repeat offenses only focuses on felony-level crimes or strict and life-threatening misdemeanors. However, states such as California have made a repeat of misdemeanor offenses face the same third strike consequences as other major felony offenses (Olson 59). This law led to the rise of the infamous three strikes out statements in various disciplines.
Criticism
Habitual offender laws face serious criticism. Firstly, there are various challenges to its legality. In the US, different human rights activists claim that this principle violates rights to a free and fair trial as protected by the Eighth Amendment. However, in 2003 in a 5-4 ruling, the majority confirmed that the sentences associated with the law do not amount to cruel and unusual punishment (Jenkins 25). Additionally, the habitual offender laws provide undue advantage to prosecutors who may force past offenders who are at time innocent into confessing to crimes leading to wrongful prosecutions. Habitual offender laws have led to unfair sentencing. In 1996, Alice Marie Johnson was convicted of being a member of a cocaine trafficking gang and was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole due to her being a repeat offender and as per the Californian laws (Jenkins 34). She was released in 2018 as a result of a presidential pardon having stayed in prison for more than twenty years. Her case has elicited mixed reactions from across the globe, with most criticism against the habitual offender laws. Sentences resulting from habitual offenses are always unfair and unjustified when compared to the crimes of the accused. However. Reforms are bringing an end to the repeat offenses
My Point of View
After detailed research, I realized that the habitual offender program is effective in the control and discouraging of repeat offenses due to the severity of the sentences. I believe that repeat offenders must face severe punishments to discourage a repeat of the behavior. However, most of the laws guiding repeat offenses must face serious scrutiny. Various legal loopholes leave judgments to the discretion of the judges who, at times, are extremely unjust and unfair, especially to members from the native and minority communities. The concept of habitual offense, while easy to implement, has a lot of loopholes that must be fixed before further implementation.
Works Cited
Duhaime Law Dictionary. Definition; Habitual Offender. 2020. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/HabitualOffender.aspx.
Jenkins, John Philip. Criminal Justice. Vol. II. Springer, 2014.
Okrent, Daniel. Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. Scribner. loc 6011(Kindle), 2010.
Olson, Tina M. “Strike One, Ready for More?: The Consequences of Plea Bargaining “First Strike” Offenders under California’s “Three Strikes” Law.” California Western Law Review 32.8 (2012): 5-17.
US Legal. Habitual offenders. 2020. https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/habitual-offender/.