Impact of the Three Strikes Law

Abstract

 The Three Strikes Law, as this paper will explain, became a controversial issue and has been debated since its implementation over a decade ago. This paper will focus on how the Three Strikes Law has impacted policing around the country and show how statistics has played a major role. The Three Strikes Law will describe the pros and cons associated with statistical data and determine the role of the statistics as well as the strength of the data.

Impact of the Three Strikes Law on Policing

The purpose of the Three Strikes Law, passed in California in 1994 after a long string of violent crimes against victims ranging in age from adult women to young girls, was to put away offenders with lengthy violent offenses (Lungren, 1996). Per Helland & Tabarrok (2007), the Three Strike Law originated in California in March of 1994 and was name “the largest penal experiment in American history”. With community outpouring for change for stiffer and harsher sentences for repeat offenders, this law, first known as AB971, became the Three Strikes Law (Jones & Newburn, 2006).

  Particularly in California the third strike can be portrayed however the prosecutor deems fit. This goes for crime not on the serious or violent crimes list established by the criminal justice system. Consequently, if one is caught with drugs like cocaine or methamphetamines with the sole intent for recreational use, one can be convicted of a felony.  For instance, say an offender is in jail and upon release gets caught a second and third time; the third arrest for crack cocaine possession, because the offender is a drug addict could land him or her life in prison (Sutton, 2013).

Basically, it sends a strong message to offenders; if one deliberately and willfully has a lack of common sense and uses violence against the victim, a tougher and much longer sentence will be imposed. The Three Strikes Law’s implied rule states that if one makes the decision to commit a violent act repeatedly – an obvious individual decision without regard for human life – then the consequences means the offender is going to spend a majority of his or her life behind prison walls (Lungren, 1996, 5).

Policing

Police are the first to make physical contact with an offender and initiates the process of getting the accused “through the maze of the justice system” (Kappeler, 2019). The Three Strikes Law has had a bigger noteworthy bearing than any other state or federal three strikes statute ever implemented. The Justice Policy Institute’s data collected shows that 21 states passing legislation – 14 have fewer than 100 incarcerated and three (Florida, Georgia, California) have over 400 offenders incarcerated under Three Strikes (Jones & Newburn, 2006).

The Three Strikes Law is a strategy on crime control emphasizing the idea that offenders cannot be deterred or rehabilitated. Policing has been promoted as a move to effective crime control (Kappeler, 2019). The Three Strikes Law makes it more dangerous for police officers, jail employees, and corrections officers.

Pros and Cons

According to Merced County, California’s Sheriff, Tom Sawyer, police and jailers are at a higher risk for offender resistance and assault. Street confrontations, escapes, and speed chases are not uncommon (Willis, 1995). The Three Strikes Law has made nonviolent criminals handled by police as if the offender is the most dangerous criminal on the planet.

There are a lot of cons that goes along with the three strikes law. One of the biggest flaws, or con, in the Three Strikes Law is that it does not prevent forceful crimes. Most violent crimes are committed out of anger and are not premeditated. Thus, they bind the hands of adjudicators who have customarily been accountable for evaluating both extenuating and provoking situations before executing a sentence” (ACLU, 2019, 5).  One of the most obvious pros of the Three Strikes Law is that it delivers justice for the wounded (Ayres, 2019).

According to LAO. (2005), the Three-Strike Law was created to deter the repeat offenders from continually committing crimes due to them being difficult to manage. The key was to impose longer prison time for certain felony offenders such as burglary, robbery, kidnapping, murder, arson, crime involving explosives, sexual offenses (rape and molestation), and crimes with weapons. Per Helland et al. (2007), the California Attorney General Office said within the first four years, the results were that 4,000 less murders and over 800,000 fewer criminal victimizations. When other states saw the results of this law, they started incorporating parts of it into their states.

Conclusion

When California and other states passed the “three strikes and you are out” law in 1994 it became one of the most popular laws for mandatory sentencing.  With the three strikes rule in place when a person is condemned of a second offence, they will receive twice the normal sentencing than what they would get without the Three-strike Law.

The statistics of the Three-Strike Law was strong enough to the point that 28 states made their own laws the same. Even though the state of California was considered to have the largest penal system, the state of Washington was the first to adopt the three-strike law in 1993.  Since than over half the United States now have some sort of three-strike law connected with it. 

References

ACLU. (2019). 10 Reasons to Oppose "3 Strikes, You'Re Out". 5p. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/other/10-reasons-oppose-3-strikes-youre-out

The Associated Press. (1995). California's 'Three Strikes' Law Dangerous for Police, Officers Say Violent, Hardened Criminals More Likely to Resist Arrest. Retrieved from https://www.spokesman.com/stories/1995/oct/29/californias-three-strikes-law-dangerous-for/

Ayers, C. (2019). 12 Three Strikes Law Pros and Cons. Retrieved from https://vittana.org/12-three-strikes-law-pros-and-cons

Helland, E., & Tabarrok, A. (2007). Does Three Strikes Deter? Retrieved from http://eds.a.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=10&sid=dd66d7cd-7270-432a-b6d7-22117868fac8%40sdc-v-sessmgr02

Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (2006, September). Three strikes and you're Out: Exploring substance abuse in America and British crime control politics. British Journal of Criminology, 46(5), 781-802. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=4&sid=add80c6e-28d9-430c-80fb-ad5855f44568%40sessionmgr103

Kappeler, Victor E. (2019). Eastern Kentucky University. Retrieved from https://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/what-place-police-within-criminal-justice-system

Lungren, D. (1996, Nov/Dec). Three Cheers for 3 Strikes. Policy Review, (80), 34, 5p. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=add80c6e-28d9-430c-80fb-ad5855f44568%40sessionmgr103&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPXNoaWImc2l0ZT1lZHMtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=9611125740&db=bth.

Sutton, J. R. (2013). Symbol and Substance: Effects of California's Three Strikes Law on felony sentencing. Law & Society Review, 47(1), 37-71. Retrieved from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=3&sid=511e693c-e510-4ad8-a804-2b5d4e728a90%40sessionmgr103&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPXNoaWImc2l0ZT1lZHMtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#AN=edsjsr.23357930&db=edsjsr