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