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.