學門類別
哈佛
- General Management
- Marketing
- Entrepreneurship
- International Business
- Accounting
- Finance
- Operations Management
- Strategy
- Human Resource Management
- Social Enterprise
- Business Ethics
- Organizational Behavior
- Information Technology
- Negotiation
- Business & Government Relations
- Service Management
- Sales
- Economics
- Teaching & the Case Method
最新個案
- A practical guide to SEC ï¬nancial reporting and disclosures for successful regulatory crowdfunding
- Quality shareholders versus transient investors: The alarming case of product recalls
- The Health Equity Accelerator at Boston Medical Center
- Monosha Biotech: Growth Challenges of a Social Enterprise Brand
- Assessing the Value of Unifying and De-duplicating Customer Data, Spreadsheet Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise, Data Supplement
- Building an AI First Snack Company: A Hands-on Generative AI Exercise
- Board Director Dilemmas: The Tradeoffs of Board Selection
- Barbie: Reviving a Cultural Icon at Mattel (Abridged)
- Happiness Capital: A Hundred-Year-Old Family Business's Quest to Create Happiness
The "Three Strikes" Law in California: The Ballot Initiative
內容大綱
In November 1994, California voters were presented with a ballot initiative on a proposed "three strikes" measure, which would impose stiff penalties on repeat offenders. Under the terms of Proposition 184, offenders with one or two violent or serious felonies on their records would get much longer sentences for second or third felony crimes-in the case of a third "strike," a term of 25 years to life; moreover, these repeat crimes did not have to be violent or serious to qualify as a strike. Although California already had a three strikes law on its books, a voter-approved initiative would make it difficult for future lawmakers to tamper with the bill's tough provisions. This case consists of three parts. The first provides background on the California three strikes law, and then briefly describes the proponents and opponents of the ballot measure, and the arguments each side put forward. HKS Case Number 1908.0