Three strikes law in American legislation turned into a very contraversary issue in American society and in legislature of separate states as it created an excellent soil for a number of political speculations on the hand with serious issues in criminology and court practices. Three strikes law is a category of statutes, which demand from courts compulsory and extended terms of incarceration, to those criminals who have convicted in serious crimes of 3 or more separate occasions. These statutes are also known among lawyers as habitual offender laws.
Rationality of these principles is the following: person who had committed a number of felonies (three or more) is recidivist, and extended term of incarceration will provide public safety and will protect society from such individuals. This term comes from baseball game, where batter has two strikes before he is out.
In more general view three strikes law was a key point of the national crime prevention policy, which was promoting in 1980s and in 1990s:
âLike many states, California began toughening its sentencing policies and adding prison capacity in the early 1980s, just as crime rates began a modest five-year decline. In fact, California was the leader among states in this trend, tripling its prison population in the decade since 1982. Between 1984 and 1991, more than 1000 bills were passed by the California legislature to change felony and misdemeanor statutes. Virtually none of these bills decreased sentences. Many lengthened them. This trend culminated in the introduction of several bills in this past legislative session, all of which required imprisonment of repeat felons for 25 years to lifeâ (from Greenwood, p. 5)
Even though that the total number of prisoners grew in the period between 1980 and 1994, surveys showed that the bigger number of people reported to be vulnerable to crime and violence, than in early records. The declining crime records in this period were very modest, but nevertheless it created an excellent soil for political speculations in the election periods for a number of state governors.
The supporters of the three strike law argue that this law will reduce the number of serious felonies committed by recidivists on 22-34% and will continue to work as a prevention method in future. About 30 percent of the crime committed by recidivists are serious crimes which include violent crimes (rape, murder, assaults), the rest of the felonies committed by recidivists are also serious: robberies and assaults. In California it was stated that three strike law will create crime reduction, which âwill be bought at a cost of an extra $4.5 billion to $6.5 billion per year in current dollars, compared to what would have been spent had the previous law remained in effect. The intent of the three-strikes law is, of course, to lock up repeat offenders longer, and that requires the construction and operation of more prisons. Some police and court costs may be saved in not having to deal so often with such offenders once they are locked up, but greater prison costs overwhelm such savings.â (from Greenwood, p. 11-15)
Those who criticize three strike law mention that its practices are too strict for less violent crimes and that their prolonged incarceration will not have positive effects in addition it require to much funds spent of their imprisonment. The opponents for the three strike law also mention that quite often the third strike is a minor felony such as a car theft, which can not be viewed as serious as other crimes, which were mentioned.
In addition opponents of the three strike law require a full research to be made in order to model the outcomes of using this statutes in real life practice. First of all the financial outcomes of this law are not very clear as they have to be, as skepticists want first to know what will be the results if the three strike law will be applied only to serious felonies rather than to minor felonies. In addition, itâs often argued that three strikes law can be simply substituted by full sentence in most of felony cases.
The supporters of the three strike law say the following about this concept:
- It will protect society from chronic criminals, who are dangerous for public and who donât want to correct
- It will function as preventive practice for existing offenders
- It will save funds which are needed to proceed chronic criminals throught the juridical system
- It is the âright thing to do.â Aside from the savings and other effects, justice demands that those who repeatedly cause injury and loss to others have their freedom revoked.
The opponents for the three strike law have the following arguments:
- Three strike law will have little to do with crime prevention as the crime rate in recent years is slowing
- Life sentences for three time offenders will require spending more money in order to support their imprisonment
- The same amount of money applied to measures other than three strikes would reduce crime by a greater amount.
- The third-strike penalty is an unduly harsh one for criminals convicted of certain felonies such as drug possession.
On the hand with speculations of politicians who want to increase their rating by promoting three strike law preventive crime practices and debates of lawyers over this contraversary issue, there is a lot unsolved and unclear for common tax payers, who will have to pay for the realization of this law on practice and who will in many respects feel on themselves whether it functions or not: âTwo years of experience with Three Strikes in California has not quieted debate about the efficacy of the law. Proponents claim victory based on lower crime rates since its passage(7) while opponents point to widely reported cases, involving minor third strikes, leading to grossly disproportionate prison termsâ (Vitiello, 1997)
And it became obvious, there is very small evidence and small analysis of the positive effects probability in case three strike law will be adopted: âThus, although some of the debate is cast in moral terms, most of the disagreements are over questions that lend themselves to quantitative analysis. Little such analysis has appeared. To the average citizen, of course, increased punishment for serious crimes has intuitive appeal. But, as decisions approach in California and other states, voters may want to know just how much crime reduction they are getting for their money. Could they do as well for less money? And just what is the total cost of the law? Citizens are not getting much information on that from the law itself, the media, or their elected representatives. The law bears no explicit price tag; the media are better at depicting crime’s human tragedy than at drawing up balance sheets; and politicians have at last found a cause that will offend no powerful interest group.â (Greenwood, p. 12-15)
The table below shows crime statistics for the state of California, which shows a large difference between high-rate offenders and low-rate offenders. The following table refers to the crime rates of the streets of Californian big cities and shows that average high-rate offender commits two serious violent crimes per year and seven serious crimes, while typical low-rate offender commits one serious crime in the period of 2,5 years. This data shows how the application of three strike law and repeat-offender penalties for such type of criminals can reduce the crime rate and violence in one particular state. The example of California in respects is typical for other states where the crime statistics doesnât differ much.
âOffense rates, however, are not the same as crime rates. If two persons collaborate in a robbery, each one has committed an offense, but there is only one crime. The bottom two panels of the table show the data that permitted ourâ
|Offenses and Crimes per Offender per Year: Index Felonies, California|
|Type of Felony|
|Type of Offender||Violent||Serious Only||Other Index||Total Index|
|Offenses per Offender per Year|
|Offenders per Crime|
|Crimes per Offender per Year|
Making a conclusion I would like to say that three strikes law has a lot of positive outcomes, in case it will be introduced. The crime rate today, even that itâs decreasing still is a matter of concern of a number of Americans. In addition as recent reports show a bigger number of Americans is now vulnerable to crime, which did not take place in earlier decades. Such tendencies have a lot of explanations, as criminals who are released from prison, especially who are released early can not find any decent job and continue their previous life of being outlaw. Statistics given in the table above shows that recidivists, especially those who commit serious crimes are very hard to reform and that mostly them contribute to high crime rate in our society. Thatâs why three strike law to my point of view should have a selective character and very extended imprisonment terms should be applied to serious crime offenders, rather than to minor crime offenders.
1. Greenwood, Peter W. Three Strikes and YouâRe Out: Estimated Benefits and Costs of Californiaâs New Mandatory-Sentencing Law, Rand 1994
2. Vitiello, Michael Three strikes: can we return to rationality Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 87, 1997
If you want to pay for a original research paper – our professional research paper writers are at your disposal. We prepare only quality papers which will meet your teacher’s requirements.
Posted in Research Paper Examples Tags: Law
The issue: Should California eliminate the "Three Strikes and You’re Out" law?
Click to read a liberal's perspective »
A conservative's perspective:
After 12-year-old Polly Klaas was kidnapped from her home during a slumber party and murdered by a lifetime criminal in 1993, the California Legislature moved quickly to pass a law intended to prevent such criminals from being released after incarceration.
Never miss a local story.
Sign up today for unlimited digital access to our website, apps, the digital newspaper and more.
“Three Strikes and You’re Out” was approved by the Legislature in March of 1994, and in November of that year, voters overwhelming passed a nearly identical law, Proposition 184.
Since that time, Three Strikes legislation has consistently faced criticism and attempts to weaken it despite its immensely positive results.
In the years since passage, crime has drastically declined in California. Critics point to a national trend and note that crime has also declined in states without Three Strikes legislation.
However, according to the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office, violent crime in California decreased by 51 percent from 1991 to 2003, compared with the national decline of 37 percent. In California, there were actually fewer felony criminal trials in 2002 than in 1993 despite population growth in the millions.
Three Strikes keeps recidivist criminals off the streets for longer periods, preventing them from committing additional crimes and harming society.
Studies estimate that in the first decade of its enforcement, more than 2 million would-be crime victims in California were spared.
Three Strikes accomplishes this through a system of “enhanced sentencing.” If a person has one previous serious or violent felony conviction, the sentence for any new felony conviction is doubled, making him a “second striker.”
If a person has two or more previous serious or violent felony convictions, the sentence for any new felony conviction is life imprisonment, with the minimum term being 25 years. He would be a “third striker.”
This system is much stricter than prior law. Previously, a person convicted of two serious felonies, such as burglary of a residence and robbery, who then committed a third serious felony, such as another robbery, would only have been sentenced to seven years.
Furthermore, such a person could be released and back onto the streets after only 31⁄2 years for “good behavior.”
Three Strikes prevents this situation by taking the focus off the crime and putting it on the criminal. It forces the justice system to consider a person’s criminal history when sentencing that individual. This is a positive thing for California.
After upholding a Three Strikes conviction in Ewing v. California, the United States Supreme Court noted another positive consequence of the law in California: More parolees have been leaving the state than entering it. This is likely due to their fear of being prosecuted further under the law.
Critics blame Three Strikes for prison overcrowding and the rising cost of corrections in California. However, there are fewer than 9,000 third strikers in California prisons, fewer than 6 percent of the total prison population.
Three Strikes is estimated to cost less than a quarter of the original projection.
It should be reiterated that second- and third-strikers have been convicted of multiple serious and/or violent felonies. Because of the high rate of recidivism, strikers would likely be in prison regardless of whether Three Strikes was on the books.
Three Strikes prevents career criminals from costing society in the form of human suffering, crime scene investigation, apprehension and prosecution.
Movements to repeal or weaken the law claim it’s too harsh and is locking up nonviolent and/or non-serious offenders. Proponents of these movements simply don’t understand the law.
Aside from the fact that all strikers have been convicted of serious and/or violent felonies, the law has safeguards that give prosecutors and trial judges discretion in choosing when to consider a felony a strike.
For instance, they can choose to disregard previous felonies when issuing a strike if they determine them to be nonserious, or for a variety of other reasons in the “furtherance of justice.”
Strikers with nonviolent drug convictions may also be eligible to go through treatment instead of serving prison time.
Often, the media has played into the hype and propagated stories of petty criminals being locked up for life for something as small as stealing videotapes. The truth of that case, however, is quite different.
In Lockyer v. Andrade the defendant had nine previous convictions, including three felony residential burglaries, several drug-trafficking offenses and an attempted escape from prison. His final strike was for felony theft of videotapes that were small in value, but his pattern of committing serious crimes and recidivism justified his life sentence.
Critics bemoan the fact that this person’s third strike was not for a serious or violent offense. However, why should we wait for this habitual criminal to commit another serious or violent crime before locking him up for good? Three Strikes is intended to prevent another tragic situation like Polly Klaas’, not enable it.
John Allan Peschong served in President Reagan’s administration and later as a senior strategist for the campaigns of President George W. Bush. He is a founding partner of Meridian Pacific Inc., a public relations and public affairs company, and serves as chairman of the San Luis Obispo County Republican Party.