The Emotional Pull

As many aspects of the Three Strikes Law have been evaluated looking at negative and positive effects to the community, officers, offenders, and victims and their families, the main reason for the enactment of the law has not yet been elaborated on. There are many career offenders whose violent actions have permitted a majority of American’s to vote and continue voting for the Three Strikes Law to stay active, regardless of the cost and downfalls it presents to society. The previous blogs have presented a plethora of different perspectives, idea’s, and views for the different pro’s and con’s of this law. Despite the various points of views, ultimately the people have voted to continue implementing this law in the courtroom, and here are a few cases that hold a strong connection to those in any community and resonate deeply with many individuals.

            Cases that invariably present this emotional link to citizens include offenders who commit heinous crimes, and do not spend a long time in prison. The first enactment of the Three Strikes held a 72% vote in favor of the law, which is a significant number (Driscoll, 2003).  Prior to the Three Strikes Law being created, this occurred quite a bit, which was why there was such a big push for this mandatory sentence law by the public. One such case was the case of Kenneth Parnell, who committed repeated predatory crimes against children. He kidnapped a nine-year old boy in 1951 and sodomized him. In 1960 he robbed a bank with a revolver. Then in 1972, he kidnapped another boy at the age of eight and held him hostage as his son for seven years. In 1980, he kidnapped another boy, and not until a month later did the boys escape and go to the police department. Parnell only received five years in prison for these crimes he committed. Finally, after the Three Strikes was enacted, Parnell was caught in a police sting operation trying to purchase a four-year-old boy for $400.00 dollars (Clair, 2000). Because of this law, instead of receiving a three-year sentence and being released back into public to offend again, Parnell was finally convicted to 25-years in prison. The mere idea that a man kidnapped two children for over seven years would only serve three years is unspeakable. This case is like many others, where individuals escape through the claws of the law despite the lengthy and repulsive criminal history and prior harm caused to many victims and families.

            Another such case that appeals to the emotions of everyday citizens is that of John Bunyard. Bunyard was convicted of 10 felonies over a 20-year time span. These felonies included the murders of two women, and rapes, assaults, and kidnappings of many others. Individuals like him are bound to continue to commit crimes of that magnitude because all they know is a life of crime, and they typically have a desire to continue despite the consequences presented if they get caught. After Bunyard was convicted to 19 years in prison for the many crimes he was convicted of, he was released and was convicted in 1992 for possessing a billy club, a crime in which he could have been sentenced to 25 years in prison due to the Three Strikes Law. However, he was placed on probation. Unfortunately, a few years later, Bunyard solicited a 14-year-old girl and offered her money to look at her provocatively (Otero&LaBahn, 2004). He was finally sentenced to a 25-year imprisonment sentence after the lewd and lascivious act he committed on the underage female. Sex crimes and crimes against children are generally looked at as very negative and grotesque actions, and many people are disgusted by individuals who have the desire to commit these acts.

            In the case above, there was a significant amount of discretion used in the case, even with the incredible amount of criminal history, the judge still decided to only give probation to Bunyard. In some regards, that was a respectable decision because of the lack of seriousness in the charges compared to the other charges rendered to him. There were no victims, and even though he was not supposed to own a weapon of any sort, probation appeared to be a good punishment. However, because of the nature of this individual, Bunyard committed another crime against a child, and wasted the second chance he was given. The Three Strikes law came into action, as some may argue it should have been used in Bunyards prior run in with the law involving the Billyclub. These are two examples of direct court cases that encourage the application of the Three Strikes Law within the community and its members.

            Although this series of blogs discusses a variety of issues that affect the criminal justice system, employees in it, citizens, victims, offenders, and the latter, these two criminal cases, along with many others create a strong foundation for the law. These negative unintended consequences of the law include an increase in officer/victim homicides, low but statistically significant, an influx in the prison population and a parallel increase in the cost of prison spent by the state, an uncertain deterrent effect, and a mandatory and extensive sentencing for minor crimes if two felonies have been convicted. However, because of the strong basis and foundation the Three Strikes Law holds due to its high morality and ethical strong points of developing citizens safety, it is viewed as a very important part to the court systems and society. These two cases exploit the necessity our communities have for tough-on-crime laws such as the Three Strikes Law.

Clair, Katy (2000). Inside the monster. East Bay Express. Retrieved on November 30,

2011. Retrieved at: http://www.eastbayexpress.com/ebx/inside-the-monster/Content?oid=1069138

Driscol, W. (2011). Three strikes- should so-called three strikes be repealed? 

International Debate Education Association. Retreived from www.idebate.org

Otero, G & LaBahn, D. (2004). Prosecutors’ perspective on California’s three strike law-

a 10-year retrospective. California District Attorneys Association. 1-62.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

The implementation of a law such as the Three Strikes Law has had a profound effect on society because of the mandatory sentencing and tough-on-crime outlook it deploys. It has imposed a big impact on the community due to the increased prison population and the cost of incarceration. Questions are raised concerning these costs and whether it correlates equally to the amount of public safety received by citizens. Keeping career criminals off the street is one of the major goals of this law, but it comes at the expense of the tax-payer and an influx of prisoners within an already crowded prison system. The cost-benefit relationship of the Three Strikes Law must be evaluated to determine whether it is an appropriate law and beneficial to society in monetary terms. In other words, does the cost exceed the benefits received from the use of the Three Strikes Law or vice versa.

             The paradigm shift in sentencing from rehabilitative programs to a tough-on-crime approach with harsher punishments has been a major reason for the influx of prisoners within the prison systems. Because of this shift, crime rate has been declining while the prison population has increased. The Three Strikes Law has added to the population overcrowding problem due to the mandatory increase in sentencing that it imposes on individuals who commit multiple serious and violent offenses. Incarcerating career criminals for longer periods benefits society because it ensures us that  offenders cannot continue to victimize the public. On the other hand, the amount of money it costs to detain someone is a considerable amount. It is estimated that the average prisoner in California costs taxpayers $47,102.00 per year to house (Bureau of Justice, 2011). This number is substantial, and even more surprising when you take into account statistics from 2004 that show over 80,000 second strikers and 7,500 third strikers have been sent to state prison since the law’s enactment in 1994 (Legislative Analysts Office, 2005). The 2004 statistics show the individuals who are currently incarcerated and the nature of the crimes they committed which helps to further dissect whether the costs outweigh the positives

Number of Second and Third Strike Defendants Confirmed in State Prison and Sentence Type (As of December 31, 2003)

	Second Strike	Third Strike	Total
Nonserious/Nonviolent	18,731	3,452	22,182
Violent	7,893	2,499	10,392
Serious	5,553	1,381	6,933
Total	32,177	7,332	39,507

                                                                                    (Otero&LaBahn, 2004)

A major argument for the Three Strikes Law is that it is a protecting agent for society. However,  over half of all second and third strikers commit non-serious and nonviolent offenses. This means that the majority of these are victimless crimes, yet these offenders  are still serving lengthy sentences. A significant amount of these nonviolent offenses are property crimes, such as theft, burglary, and drug related incidents (Austin et al, 1999). It is important to punish individuals who are constantly breaking the law, but sentencing an individual to 25-years to life for a nonviolent and non-serious offense is viewed by critics of the Three Strikes Law as an excessive punishment. This also raises the question whether someone who commits a burglary, theft, or other minor offense, is worth the price the state department pays for housing and feeding these criminals, especially when their offense are so minor.  Another major factor is the age of some of the individuals who are being held accountable for their crimes under the Three Strikes Law for non-serious crimes and receive  25-years to life in prison because older inmates require costly healthcare and other services rendered to them. It is estimated that a geriatric patient costs three times what a regular inmate does (Vitiello, 1997). This questions the versatility of the Three Strikes Law because as a person ages, their likelihood of recidivism decreases significantly. For example, an 18-25 year old released is 70% more likely to re-offend, compared to 22.1% of 50-64 year olds, and 7.4% of 65 years or older offenders (Vitiello, 1997). This means that the longer we imprison someone for, the more their recidivism rate decreases so the question must be asked, should we keep someone who is 50-65 or older incarcerated for their offenses and pay the added expenses for them when we can release them into society and the chances of them reoffending are less.

Inmates sentencing under the Three Strikes Law makes up about 26% of the entire prison population (Legislative Analysts Office, 2005). One of the main reasons for this high number is because of the increase in the length of time individuals must stay in the prison. The more felonies someone is convicted of, the longer the sentence; as opposed to first time offenders who may be released early. Although these longer sentences cost the state more money, the increased amount of time imposed on these career criminals is beneficial to society for several reasons. As stated previously, it is impossible for those incarcerated to commit more crimes within the community. This means less harm and higher safety measures to all citizens. Also, if the offenders are locked up for longer periods, they cannot commit more crimes. This decreases the amount of court fees, jail fees, as well as lowering the actual cost of crimes. Although these amounts are not as significant as the cost of incarceration, they are still applicable and should be noted. The money saved by sentencing individuals to prison for longer periods will never be equivalent to the cost it takes to keep an inmate, but the perceived sense of security and retribution for those victims and family of the victims is something that cannot be measured.

            Although there are many benefits to imprisonment of compulsive offenders, it is very costly to house criminals in prison, and the Three Strikes Law has the aftereffect of putting more individuals in prison for a longer period of time, thus costing the state a significant amount of money. In regards to safety purposes, statistics show that a majority of the criminals sent to prison for second and third strike convictions are for non-serious and nonviolent crimes. This means the offenses are most likely victimless crimes which create more of a threat to property than to individuals. In addition there  is a decrease in court costs and fees and less stress applied to other aspects of the criminal justice system.  Ultimately it appears as if the cost exceeds the benefits of the Three Strikes Law.

           

Austin, J., Clark, J., Hardyman, P., & Henry, D., (1999). Punishment & Society: The

impact of three strikes and your out. vol. 1 no. 2 131-162

(2011) Direct expenditures by criminal justice function, 1982–2006". U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved 29 November 20011.

Legislative Analysts Office (2005). A Primer: Three strikes- The impact after more than a

decade. Legislative Analysts Office. 1-36.

Otero, G & LaBahn, D. (2004). Prosecutors’ perspective on California’s three strike law-

a 10-year retrospective. California District Attorneys Association. 1-62.

Vitiello, M. (1997). Three Strikes: Can we return to rationality? Journal of Criminal Law

& Criminology, 87(2), 395-481.

Is Mandatory Best?

                   The discretion exercised by judges when discussing the Three Strikes Law is a double-edged sword. The law applies mandatory sentencing to individuals who commit multiple felonies and imposes a 25-years to life prison sentence to those who commit a third offense after receiving two prior felony convictions. However, the adjudicator may offer some leniency to offenders by dismissing a prior strike conviction or lessening a prior felony offense to a misdemeanor charge. This acts as a more justifiable solution for offenders who deserve a second chance.  Reductions are rare occurrences, however, so as not to negate the firm intentions of the law. Even so, many protestors have the preconceived notion that the lack of leniency afforded to those convicted criminals poses a threat to public safety because of the drastic actions taken by criminals to avoid capture. The limited discretion exercised by judges has been an effective approach in depleting career criminals from the streets, but it has harmed law enforcement officers and victims involved with potential three-strike offenders.

            The mandatory sentencing was first questioned in the 1996 landmark case of People Vs. Superior Court (Romero). This case set the precedent that allows judges to exercise judicial discretion in all cases to dismiss any and all prior convictions of an offender. To maintain the honesty of the courtroom, there are major limitations to this use of judgment. Abuse of this discretion occurs if a prior conviction is dismissed to accommodate judicial convenience or the increasing court congestion, because of a guilty plea, or personal dislike of the Three Strikes Law (Otero & LaBahn, 2004). Proper application of this discretionary power requires the trial court to consider “the constitutional rights of the defendant, and the interest of society represented by the people” (People Vs. Orin, 1975). The complete dismissal of convictions must have a valid reason to occur, which maintains the integrity of the Three Strikes Law and forces recognition of the law by those who choose to lead a life of crime. There are few opportunities for judges to dismiss a felony strike previously accounted for because of the enforcements set in place.

            Along with the ability to dismiss a conviction, judges have the authority to reduce a felony or a wobbler (a crime that can be sentenced as a misdemeanor or felony) to a misdemeanor. By making this reduction, the Three Strikes Law would not be applicable or there would be a decrease in sentencing because the law only considers felony convictions as a strike. The process of reducing a felony to a misdemeanor has similar restrictions to a conviction dismissal. Judicial review occurs in any case, but there must also be a thorough investigation given to the criminal history of the defendant, along with all relevant information pertaining to the case. It must be a fact-bound inquiry, with high consideration given to public safety; one of the main features of the law (Otero & LaBahn, 2004). The mandatory requirements involved in dismissal of a conviction combined with the procedures for reducing a felony to a misdemeanor limits the judge’s ability to use discretion. This is what makes the Three Strikes Law more effective. It  grants justices the ability to use their own discretion, but not to their full power because doing so would only promote further dilution of the affirmation of the law due to the questionable outcomes for each case. Without the Three Strikes Law there would be uncertainty in sentencing practices and instead of increasing deterrence mechanisms and public safety, we would have a game of Russian Roulette for criminals to see who could escape the law.

While the limited discretionary powers judges are given allows them the ability  to eliminate or reduce strike charges and enhances the general public’s safety by keeping criminals off the street, it does not do the same for police officers, victims, and witnesses. In fact, two separate studies have shown there is an increase in officer homicide and victim/witness homicide with considerable data implying it is due to a fear of the increased penalties of third strike eligible criminals. The certainty of punishment creates irrational actions committed by those to avoid the consequences. One study took data from over 50 states over a 29 years time span. It concluded that the Three Strikes Law resulted in a 10-12% increase of officer/victim homicides in the short-run by those individuals who are three strikes eligible, and an even bigger increase of 23-29% in the long run (Marvell and Moody, 2001). Although officer homicides are rare, these numbers are still statistically significant and show there is a correlation between the Three Strikes Law and pubic safety. A second study that was conducted during a 19-year span, took multiple research surveys over a long period of time from 188 U.S. cities with populations of over 100,000. The conclusion showed in cities implementing the Three Strikes Law that there was a short-term homicide rate increase of 13-14% with a long-term increase of 16-24% (Kovandzic et al., 2002).  These two studies had paralleling results even though they were both conducted in different manners and took information from separate sources. These similarities provide a stable argument further reinforcing the unintended consequences of homicide are affiliated with the Three Strikes Law.

            Although the studies above provide a correlation between the Three Strikes Law and homicides, other studies conducted within prison walls have shed light on the reasoning for these increased murder rates. A study presented in an earlier blog revealed that over 50% of individuals incarcerated stated they would kill someone if it meant they would be more likely to get away with the crime they committed (Schafer, 1999).  An online interview with Former FBI Agent Gary Morley showed similar information, as he stated that a majority percentage of incarcerated individuals claimed they would be more likely to kill their victims to avoid a life sentence. He also stated it is especially dangerous for police officers pulling over individuals who are facing third strikes because those individuals are a large percentage of subjects who have killed officers during routine traffic stops (Morley, 2011). The mandatory sentencing and lack of discretion allowed to judges sets the stage for these unintentional consequences that decreases public safety of those officers and individuals involved with these criminals.

            The statistically significant increase in homicides and the effectiveness of this law in keeping career criminals off the street are both determined by the lack of discretion given to judges in the courtroom. The more consistent the punishment and consequences, the less likely individuals will engage in a life of crime and more career criminals will be serving time for longer periods rather than being released back into society to create more havoc within communities. However, when the same concept of mandatory punishment applies, statistics and surveys show more homicides take place because of the fear of increased obligatory punishment and perceived consequences. The Three Strikes Law has a positive effect on the community and increasing public safety, but it is followed by an unintentional negative effect of increased homicide rates and a decrease in public and officer safety due to its limitation of discretion and mandatory sentencing,

                                                  

Johnson, J., & Saint-German, M. (2005). Officer down: implications of three strikes for

public safety. Criminal Justice Policy Review, vol. 16 no. 4, 443-460.

Kovandzic, Tomislav V.; Sloan III, John, J.; & Viertaitis, Lynne M. (2002). Unintended

consequences pf politically popular sentencing policy: The homicide promoting effects “Three Strikes” In U.S. Cities (1980-1999). Criminology & Public Policy, 1, 399-424.

Morley, Gary (2011). Oct 14, 2011. Online interview.

Otero, G & LaBahn, D. (2004). Prosecutors’ perspective on California’s three strike law-

a 10-year retrospective. California District Attorneys Association. 1-62.

People Vs. Orin (1975) 13 Cal.3d 937, 945

Schaefer, J (1999). The deterrent effect of three strikes law. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. 

The Deterrent Effect

            The main intentions of enacting the Three Strikes Law were to practice consistent sentencing and keep career criminals off the street. Along with these two provisions, the law had other effects on society and criminals. One of them is the controversial deterrent effect. Deterrence states that the perceived punishment of an action will dissuade individuals from committing those actions. There are two types of deterrence, individual and general deterrence. Individual deterrence is one that is placed on a single offender when their own consequences deter them from practicing their negative actions again. General deterrence is when potential offenders observe the consequences of those around them and decide not to engage in those same behaviors (Ramirez&Crano, 2003). The deterrence effect of the Three Strikes Law is controversial because there are no clear-cut facts that prove the statistics gathered are a direct result of the law. However, looking at the statistics and potential effects stemming from the deterrence debate allows one to view the efficiency of the law and its effect on society. This paper will examine both sides of the deterrent effect argument of the Three Strikes Law and possible effects derived from it.

            The most operative way to depict whether there is a deterrent effect is by looking at the statistics and effect on crime rates after the law was passed. The history of crime in California before the three strikes law consisted of significantly higher crime rates than the rest of the nation. Homicide rates and violent crimes were exceptionally high, and 62.5% of inmates released from prison were rearrested for a new crime within three years of their release date  (Ramirez, 2003). To counteract high crime rates, California transitioned from sentencing measures that emphasized rehabilitation to one that focused on deterrence and punishment (Legislative Analysts Office, 2005).  Hence, the Three Strikes Law was created. During the beginning of this transition, there was a 26.9% drop in crime. This translates to 815,000 fewer crimes being committed in a one-year span (Schafer, 1999). The number of crimes committed continued to decline, and although there are no statistics proving it was a direct effect of this law specifically, advocates imply there is a definite correlation due to the time frame of the creation of this law and the consistency in the declining crime rate. They believed the threat of 25 years to life and harsher punishments was a strong deterrent for potential criminals.

            On the contrary, critics claim these statistics are not due to the enactment of this specific law or the change in sentencing, but instead, is due to a change in policies and preventative measures, such as new policing practices. The counter-argument to the state of California’s drop in homicides and violent crime rates are challenged when taking a wider view of crime rates and population demographics. Nationally, the overall crime rate declined in all states during the mid 1990’s, even those that did not have any mandatory sentencing laws. It is a well-known phenomenon that crime is a young man’s activity. Individuals from the ages of 18-25 commit the most crimes nationally (Wu, 2011). The influx of crime from the 1970’s to the 1990’s can be explained by the baby boomer generation being within the crime prone age range. As they began to grow out of that age range, it coincidentally occurred after the sentencing policy changes and the Three Strikes Law, making the two appear to be related to one another. Along with the lack of correlation, these critics claim the law actually has the opposite effect of deterrence and ignites more violent acts and increased homicides.

            One examination delved into the deterrent effect by administering a study to incarcerated individuals who fell under the Three Strikes Law provisions. It was given to 604 men in an all male residential lock-down facility. The survey had questions that measured specific deterrence, general deterrence, and offender intent and categorized the males by age, race, education, and other factors. Results showed that 61% of those individuals responded no when asked whether they would commit a serious or violent crime if they knew their sentence would be doubled, and 70% said they would not commit a serious or violent crime if they knew they would receive life in prison. These statistics depict that there is a specific deterrent effect for individuals who are in prison for committing crimes. However, results decreased significantly when the inmates were asked whether or not they thought that other criminals would refrain from committing crimes if they were presented with similar sentencing circumstances. Many believed they would not. This shows that general deterrence is clearly not a persuading factor (Schafer, 1999). One of the limitations of this study is that during the course of the survey, individuals taking the survey were simultaneously reaping the punishment of the crimes they committed; potentially skewing the results because of the negative atmosphere they were living in. Even though this is the case, there is still viable information received from the study.

The findings from the survey did not only determine that the Three Strikes Law has more of a specific deterrence effect than a general one, but it also revealed that over 50% of the individuals in the study admittedly said that they would kill witnesses or law enforcement officers to avoid a life sentence. Amongst gang members, these statistics were even higher, 62% (Schafer, 1999). These statistics above have merit, as there was an increase in homicides being committed by individuals who had perceived a harsh punishment resulting from being caught with a third strike against them (Blount, 2008). This enforces the critic’s argument against the law; showing that it does not deter crime because of the punishment, but instead, creates more violence amongst criminals trying to avoid receiving a longer sentence. These findings also suggest that there may be other effects than just the deterrent effect that deserve attention when assessing the Three Strikes Law and its impact on society.

There are a variety of resulting occurrences that have stemmed from the creation of the Three Strike Law, including potential negative effects to the safety of law enforcement and other individuals involved in extreme situations. One must note the different reactions and possible consequences to society, especially this controversial deterrent action of law. Although there is no conclusive evidence as to whether or not the Three Strikes Law deters criminals from committing more crimes either specifically or generally, there are solid arguments on both sides. This allows us to examine the different perspectives of this law, the impact it has on the community, and those involved in it, which ultimately creates a more open mind when discussing the effects of the Three Strikes Law.

           

References:

Blount, Edwardo. (2008). Three strikes: Has the popular sentencing policy increased rates of

homicide? Department of Public Administration, San Fransisco State University. 1-17.

Legislative Analysts Office (2005). A Primer: Three strikes- The impact after more than a

decade. Legislative Analysts Office. 1-36.

Ramirez, J., & Crano, W. (2003). Deterrence and incapacitation: An interrupted time-series

analysis of california's three-strikes law. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(1), 110-144.

Schafer, J (1999). The deterrent effect of three strikes law. FBI Law Enforcement  

Bulletin.

Wu, Bushi. Lecture: October 25, 2011. Sacramento State University.

Three Strikes Law

             Three strikes is not only a key term for a great defensive play on the softball field; its connotation has been carried from the dugout and into the courtroom. It is a law that was legalized in California in 1994, along with 24 other states that implemented different versions, all with the same intentions. The courtroom Three Strikes Law was passed in an attempt to stay consistent in sentencing practices and protect society by keeping career criminals off the streets. This law consists of harsher punishments for multiple felony and serious offenses, and can result in a 25 year to life sentence. A felony is defined as any crime that is punishable by one or more years in prison. Along with this mandatory 25 year long prison sentence for three accumulated felonies, two felonies doubles the sentencing for the second felony acquired. The Three Strike’s law has affected society in a variety of ways, making it imperative to explore how this law came to be in order to understand the complete impact it has on society.

 The Three strikes law was originally discussed in the 1980s when politicians realized that inconsistent sentencing was an issue (Driscoll, 2011).  It gradually progressed into a law that dealt with repeat offenders and became a practice of justifying proper sentencing for those individuals who commit multiple serious offenses. During this time there were several high-profile murders being committed by individuals who had been released from prison on other serious charges. The severity of this issue called for the proposal of harsher sentencing and easily drew support from the political arena, as well as society (Legislative Analyst's Office, 2005).  It drew public support then and currently has a majority vote from California’s citizens in favor of keeping the Three Strikes Law. It was critical issues such as this that began brewing thoughts about how to protect society from individuals who could not resist committing crimes.

After the law was enacted in 1994, there were instant and long-term results. The biggest instant impact that the Three Strikes law had on society was the “controversial” deterrent effect. Looking at the positive perspective of the deterrent effect, the crime rate dropped 26.9% within 4 years of enacting the law, which translates to about 815,000 fewer crimes annually (Schafer, 1999). That is a major factor in protecting society, and although the drop in crime cannot solely be placed on the Three Strikes deterent effect, it was a stepping-stone to help the steady decline of crime rates. However, some critics, argue that the crime rate was already steadily declining before the enactment of this law, and the decline is due to more effective policing rather than harsh punishment (Otero, 2004). There are few statistics that can provide a definite answer as to why this decline in crime occurred, but it also creates a recurring controversy about the effectiveness of the deterring ability of this law. There are many factors that have played a role in decreasing the crime rate over the last decade, but it is debatable that the Three Strikes law has a part in this statistic.

Another impact this law has  had is on prison overcrowding and the cost that it takes to house these long-term prisoners. Prison overcrowding is a serious issue and it affects every citizen in the United States who pays taxes to the government. This becomes another controversial issue because it becomes a debate between societal safety and expenses for long-term institutionalization. It is a current issue and will be a long-term factor as this law becomes more pronounced and utilized in the court system. . This is yet another reason as to why it is important to take a look at the Three Strike’s law and determine its complete outcome on society.

As we look at the benefits and negative aspects the Three Strikes law brings to society, we cannot neglect looking at the individuals who are affected as well.  Many individuals are affected who commit crimes and they must reap the punishment of their actions. The families of these convicts are negatively impacted as well. The media also tends to portray the stories about these individuals who are deemed unworthy of this sentencing because their third strikes are petty crimes. This is an issue because some individuals are sentenced for petty crimes, but  we must remember that there is bias in some stories. No one can be sentenced by this law unless they received three convictions, two of which must be serious crimes. This law is criticized because its lack of flexibility in the courts and with the judges. It has a “one-size fits all” outlook which can sometimes be ineffective when looking at the bigger picture of trying to protect society from evil criminals (Messerli, 2006). This law also affects the court system, the judges, prosecutors, and the defense attorneys with their decisions and influence on the sentencing. Overall, there is a significant amount of participation by a wide variety of individuals in order to put this law into play.

The Three Strike’s law effects society and so many other individuals that we must take all perspectives into consideration when evaluating the effectiveness of this law and its ability to protect society and satisfy its main intentions. We must remember that fair and consistent sentencing as well as keeping society safe is the general objective of this law. Weighing the pros and cons of the Three Strikes law will allow us to see if it is costing people more time and money than it is protecting communities or if it is truly living up to its own standards and creating a consistent environment within the courtroom and acting as a safeguard to society.

Driscol, W. (2011). Three strikes- should so-called three strikes be repealed?

International Debate Education Association. Retreived from http://www.idebate.org/

Legislative Analysts Office (2005). A Primer: Three strikes- The impact after more than a

decade. Legislative Analysts Office. 1-36.

Messerli, J. (2006). Is the three-strikes law, which provides mandatory 25-to-life

sentences for a third felony conviction, a good idea? Retrieved on September 26, 2011. Retrieved from Balancedpolitics.org

Otero, G & LaBahn, D. (2004). Prosecutors’ perspective on California’s three strike law-

a 10-year retrospective. California District Attorneys Association. 1-62.

Schafer, J (1999). The deterrent effect of three strikes law. FBI Law Enforcement  
             Bulletin.

---