THREE STRIKES LAW

Three Strikes Law

Three Strikes Law

Introduction

Few criminal justice policies evoke more debate and discussion than the enhanced sentencing provisions commonly referred to as “three strikes and you're out” laws. These laws have become a point of contention for criminal justice practitioners, researchers, activists, and attorneys concerning the justice and injustice of these sentence enhancements. The three-strikes sentencing policies, which became popular in the United States in the mid-1990s, enhance the punishment for repeat offenders by triggering a mandatory prison sentence for those individuals who have been previously convicted of a serious or violent felony; the sentence is significantly higher for repeat offenders versus first-time offenders committing the same act.

From 1993 to 1995, 24 states and the federal government passed three-strikes provisions in response to the perceived increase in violent crime in the United States, although whether violent crime had actually been increasing during this time has been called into question. Habitual offender laws were not new to the American criminal justice system, and many states already had provisions in place increasing the punishment for repeat offenders. Despite this, politicians and lobbyists still opted to introduce new three strikes laws in connection with the popular slogan to their state legislatures. The purpose of these laws was to increase the length of time that dangerous offenders such as rapists and murderers spent in prison for a third felony.

The provisions of the three strikes laws vary from state to state, with California's version of the law providing the harshest penalty for repeat offenders, regardless of whether or not the third felony was violent or serious.

Description and Analysis

The motivation for the adoption of three-strikes laws as a crime control measure centered on two philosophies of effective crime reduction: (1) incapacitation and (2) specific and general deterrence. Proponents of three strikes laws argued that the extended sentences guaranteed to repeat offenders would increase public safety by removing chronic offenders from communities for much longer periods of time, sometimes for life. The three-strikes laws were also expected to fulfill the goal of specific deterrence by reminding offenders who already had previous offenses on their record that there would be serious repercussions for committing an additional felony.

It was also expected that the lengthy sentences handed down to chronic offenders would result in general deterrence by illustrating to those with or without existing criminal records the extent of what the criminal justice system response would entail upon commission of repeated criminal activity. The three strikes crime control policies reflect the tough-on-crime rhetoric espoused by politicians and promoted by the mass media's emphasis on violent crime during the mid-1990s. While nearly half of the states passed three-strikes provisions during this time period, with the exception of California, the laws were mostly symbolic and not applied with any regularity. Since the adoption of these laws, many legal and ethical debates have been introduced regarding the ethics, fairness, and constitutionality of these laws (Jody, 2006).

Pro: Arguments in Support of Three Strikes Laws

The primary impetus for the three strikes laws ...