The Pros and Cons of Three Strikes Law
Authored by R. Elizabeth C. Kitchen in Criminal Law
Published on 09-02-2009
The three strikes law originated in California. It was born to try and prevent offenders from becoming repeat offenders. The three strikes law says that when a person is convicted of three felonies they will be sentenced to a mandatory twenty-five years to life sentence. A felony is a crime in which a person can be sentenced to a least a year or more in prison. Like most laws the three strikes law has been heavily criticized, however it does has its pros and cons.
A pro of the three strikes law is that it helps to fix a flawed justice system so that those who choose to be repeat offenders will stay in prison. In today’s society, most crimes are committed by repeat offenders and this law is a tool that the justice system can use to prevent this. It will also help to reduce liberal sentences, plea bargaining and case backlogs.
Another pro of the three strikes law is that it can effectively deter offenders who have had two felony convictions from committing another crime. It seems to help deter offenders because after their second conviction it will be on their mind that if they commit a third offense they will be sentenced to a prison term of at least twenty-five years. They may also face a life sentence. This law can help to discourage offenders from committing more minor offenses such as burglary and it will also help to discourage them from committing more heinous crimes such as rape, murder and armed robbery.
Another pro of the three strikes law is that it only applies to convictions. Therefore, if a person is simply arrested and not found guilty they will not be subjected to the punishment of the three strikes law. This can also be a con though too. The con would be because just because an offender is not convicted, it does not mean that he or she did not commit the crime.
A con of the three strikes law is that it can be viewed as a one-size-fits all form of justice. It can be argued that different people and different crimes deserve different punishments. It can also be argued that this law will override the reason that the United States has judges and juries. It may prevent offenders from a fair trial where their particular situation and the evidence obtained can be fairly analyzed.
Another con of the three strikes law is that it can be considered simply unjust depending on the particular crime committed. For example, should a person whose third offense is stealing a pizza deserve the same punishment as someone whose third offense is murder? This con also argues that it is not fair for a two-time offender if he or she is wrongly convicted.
Another con of the three strikes law is that it arguably violates the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. The eighth amendment makes the use of cruel and unusual punishment illegal. Many argue that sentencing a person under the three strikes law if their violation was minor, such as stealing a pizza, violates their eighth amendment rights.
| If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to: |
 Criminal Law Articles |
- Rate Article:
Loading ...
As an advocate to change the 3-strikes law, I felt it necessary to point something out….CA has the toughest, most wide spanning 3-strikes law in the nation, but yet we have the highest recidivism rate (around 70%). Therefore, the law has failed at detering crime. While I believe some low level offenders have been detered, it hasn’t been effective in detering crime from our most serious offenders. If you compare crime rates from across the country, states w/out 3-strike laws actually had greater declines in crime, particularly violent crime compared w/CA. We have to keep in mind that people generally commit crimes under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol, commit violent crimes in the heat of the moment in anger or out of revenge, or don’t believe they will caught in the first place. Therefore, we can’t continue to ignore the underlying factors that drive people to crime or substance abuse in the first place. The $$$ we are spending to pay for this law could be much more effectively used toward education, drug treatment, and other programs proven to prevent crime before it happens. The 3-strikes law is an ineffective bandaide, only locking people up after crimes have been committed. I hardly see that as a solution.
[Reply]
http://www.threestrikes.org/pdf/15YearReport09.pdf
Read it, look at the facts, also Cali may have a high occurrence rate, but if you think the three strike rule have failed because of this your highly mistaken. Being a deterrent is only one of the aspects of this rule. After 2 Major crimes and 1 minor-major, their off the street and cant re-do a crime to a helpless citizen who follows the rules. Face the facts if they go to jail for three convictions(Not crimes because criminals break more crime then they get convicted for) they are WAY more likely to re-fracture the law, and if you want to be the victim of their criminal career so be it, but for the rest of us law obeying citizens we shouldn’t have to worry about getting robbed from someone who has been in prison 3+ times.
[Reply]
Rob, first, I don’t want to be the victim of a career criminal or even a first time criminal which is why I want us to reprioritize our limited resources into something that works to prevent crime. Right now a 70% recidivism rate compared to other states w/as low as 20% recidivism rates tells me can do a lot better!! As for the study, I have read that study back when it was first written. It was put out by the father of 3-strikes. Can you provide me w/a more neutral peer reviewed journal source for that data? By the way, I agree that no one should be robbing 3 times, but what did we do to prevent that from happening the first time? There are soooo many more cost effective prevention programs that target at-risk youth or those in prison who commit their first robbery, but unforunately those programs are being cut b/c we have a growing prison budget that produces nothing but a high recidivism rate. Therefore, we are just perpetuating the cycle. We are telling people not to do something by using a catchy slogan w/out giving them any tools to change. That would be like expecting a struggling student to graduate, but taking their books and study materials away.
[Reply]
Your political anger isn’t to the three strikes law, it’s to the ineffectiveness of rehabilitating in the justice system. The three strikes law wasn’t made for rehabilitation. it was created to take those people who have no chance at becoming a civil functioning part of our society off the street. If you wanna preach about recidivism rate do it else where, the three strike rule was designed and implemented to pickup where rehabilitation fails. The prison system isn’t a moral counselor its to punish those who have done wrong. If 10years of incarceration wont give these criminals the message, nothing will… And your acting like these criminals don’t know once they are on their second strike if they fracture the law again they are going away for life. They know and still proceed with their criminal instinct… Is this because they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? No, its because these people are career criminals that wont stop because they got 5 years in the pen.
Because of the three strikes law there has been less victims and money has been saved, people act like criminal investigations and police time doesn’t cost money, it does.
I definitely think that crimes are different, and should be judged differently. Especially when you take into consideration what the comment above says.
[Reply]
Very good arguments !!!
[Reply]
both sides have very good points in their arguments, however i think this law needs to be altered to the case they have in front of them. And they need to make sure that if the same crime is commited by different people that it is carried off with the same consequences
[Reply]
Well i don’t know much about he three strikes and your out law. but what i do know is that this law doesn’t seem efficient. If you are seeing a 70% recedivism what does that tell you? our justice system is all messed up starting with our jail system. We spend so much money on people who care less about what goes on in life. On people who have hurt innocent people. i don’t see why our tax money should go to them. Instead the government should focus on education on the kids who will be the future. The reason why we have so much crime is because we are putting so much money into our prison system and we cut off money from education. So many kids are not getting the education they should get because their are so many cuts being made on the education system. Now in classes teacher have about 40 student. how is one teacher going to be able to teach and control their class. So those students who are slower than others get little to no attention, eventually leading them to give up in school. And they turn to other things such as crime and drugs and it is there where our new criminals come out from. So why don’t we do something about it and help change those children who have fallen under the influence of crime they actually have a bigger chance of changing than those who have lived all there life being criminals…………… forget about them for a second and focus on what is more important our future the children………………………..
[Reply]
looking at the origin of the three strike law you will find out that it was created by the union of guards. What does that tell you? Obviously the more criminals in the prison systems the more money produced for prison guards. I believe this law to be very unjust because of its inconsistency and violation of the 8th amendement. To be honest examining the whole judicial system will show that it is flawed. For example, how is it that there is a harsher sentence for rock cocaine vs powdered cocaine? Or the white collard criminals who have “soft time” sentences but yet contribute to the destruction of our economy.. etc.. The third strike law should only be mandated on violent crimes, but instead 75 % of criminals on the third strike offense our non violent crimes.. causing the over crowding of prison systems and increase in tax dollars. We need to examine this law and make some changes, left unchanged its unconstitutional .
[Reply]
Hi everyone reading this. Virtually all big court houses have a blindfolded figure standing holding scales. This is meant to represent fairness and an unbiased approach to justice. How can sending someone to jail for 25 years for a minor offense (quoted here as theft of a pizza) really be in the public interest or be called fair or just. Has it reduced crime or prevented it? There are many reasons in today’s evermore complex societies are there to explain why people offend more than three times. Many persistent offenders seem to have a poor education which can in part cause Joblessness and can prevent people from getting on the employment ladder and start building a law abiding life. Many others have mental illness, socially debilitating conditions like autism or troubled childhoods with a history of severe abuse or bullying which isolate them from society. Don’t they need help? I could go on for several thousand more words to suggest reasons why people persist in breaking the law. So how then can an uncompromising sentence of 25 years hard time in jail for your third convicted offense (unless it is for murder, armed robbery or drug dealing) be in society’s interest? It’s just throwing good taxpayers money after bad locking someone in jail for a life sentence. By the way after the 25 year sentence is served and they steal another pizza after being released. Do they serve another 25 years for their fourth offense? To set the record straight I am not, what is sometimes referred to as a bleeding liberal or do-gooder, indeed I believe in the death penalty for certain crimes for serial killers who have are responsible for mass murder or child murders, but what ever happened to the concept of the punishment fitting the crime?
[Reply]