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.
No comments:
Post a Comment