Reference no: EM133202444

1. In March 1995, a 27 year old man who had stolen a slice of pizza from a group of children sitting outside a pizza parlor became the first person to be sentenced to 25 years to life in prison under California's "three strikes and you're out". Enacted March 7, 1995, the law was reinforced November 5, 1995, by a constitutional amendment supported by 72% of California voters. The "three strikes" law is triggered by two past felony convictions. In this case, the defendant was convicted of "petty theft with prior felony conviction". He had already been convicted of robbery, drug possession, and riding a stolen motorcycle.

a. It will cost the taxpayers of California about $26,000 a year to incarcerate the man. Is it worth it? Is it a wise expenditure of tax dollars?

b. Is the punishment proportional to the crime or crimes? Should it be?

c. Do you think "petty theft with a prior conviction" is a legitimate trigger of a "three strikes" law?

d. There is no question that the offender was a criminal. He had a reputation for being a bully. Nevertheless, are "three strikes and you're out" laws an ethically defensible way of dealing with such criminals? Why or why not?

2. a. Do you support the death penalty (yes or no)? Why?

b. What offense(s) is the death penalty given for?

c. Do you think the death penalty is an effective deterrent?

d. How much do you think it costs to administer the death penalty? (i.e. from trial through appeals and incarceration as well as the actual execution)

e. What are your thoughts about the data/information you collected...what was most interesting?