Three Strikes and Out

Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Michael Tonry

In the 2020s, no informed person disagrees that punishment policies and practices in the United States are unprincipled, chaotic, and much too often unjust. The financial costs are enormous. The moral cost is greater: countless individual injustices; mass incarceration; the world’s highest imprisonment rate; extreme disparities, especially affecting members of racial and ethnic minority groups; high rates of wrongful conviction; assembly-line case processing; and a general absence of respectful consideration of offenders’ interests, circumstances, and needs. The main ideas in this book about doing justice and preventing crime are simple: Treat people charged with and convicted of crimes justly, fairly, and even-handedly, as anyone would want done for themselves or their children. Take sympathetic account of the circumstances of peoples’ lives. Punish no one more severely than he or she deserves. Those propositions are implicit in the rule of law and its requirement that the human dignity of every person be respected. Three major structural changes are needed. First, selection of judges and prosecutors, and their day-to-day work, must be insulated from political influence. Second, mandatory minimum sentence, three-strikes, life without parole, truth in sentencing, and similar laws must be repealed. Third, correctional and prosecution systems must be centralized in unified state agencies.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 417-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Carriger

Purpose Much has been written in both the management and finance literatures about the impact of downsizing on the financial health and market valuation of companies. However, surprisingly little attention has been paid to the frequency of downsizing and the impact of frequent downsizings. The purpose of this paper is to look at trends in downsizing, asking the question are companies that downsize once more likely to downsize again. The paper also looks at the impact of frequent downsizing, asking the question are frequent downsizers differentially impacted compared to less frequent downsizers. Design/methodology/approach Companies that appeared on the Fortune 500 in 2014 and were also on the list in 2008 were assessed for the impact of repeat downsizings on financial measures (profitability, efficiency, debt, and revenue) and market valuation. A trend analysis was conducted to assess the trend in downsizing and repeated downsizing from 2008 through 2014. A series of univariate analysis of variances were conducted to assess the impact of repeated downsizings on the financial and market valuation indicators. Findings Findings indicate that companies that downsize between 2008 and 2009 were more likely to downsize again in future years. And this repeat downsizing happened at a higher rate than would be expected by the percentage of companies that initially downsized. Findings also indicate that multiple downsizings had a significantly negative impact on the company’s financial performance as measured by two profitability ratios (return on assets and return on investment) and a borderline significant negative impact on the company’s market valuation as measured by stock equity, regardless of industry or initial financial health of the company. Originality/value Two competing theories were considered and the evidence found here support both. However, the “band-aid solution” theory, that downsizing may function as a band-aid addressing the symptoms that lead to the downsizing but not the underlying disorder or cause may be a more parsimonious explanation for the results here. It is hoped that these findings will inform both scholars and practitioners, giving both a clearer picture of the impact of multiple downsizings on corporate performance.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document