Category of Three-Strikes Laws - Essay Example

Let’s Get Tough:

Three-Strikes Laws

Three-strike laws are a category of statutes which are enacted by state governments in the United States. They began in the 1990s, and their purpose is to require courts to hand down a mandatory and most often times extended period of incarceration to persons who have been convicted of serious criminal offence on three or more separate occasions. “The stated rationale for these laws is that the automatic and lengthy imprisonment of individuals who commit more than two felonies is justified on the basis that recidivists are incorrigible and chronically criminal, and must be imprisoned as a matter of public safety.” (“Wikipedia”, 2006). The name itself derives from baseball, where a batter has three strikes before striking out.

The main purpose of activating these three-strike laws was to lower the crime rate among offenders; there are split opinions on this subject. While some believe that these laws are sure to be effective against crime due to the lengthened and more rigid penalty the offenders while receive, some question if the three-strike laws can realistically be expected to lower the crime rate. The cost of this effort to deter criminals is quite substantial; “In California alone the three-strikes law is estimated to increase correctional spending by $4.5 to $6.5 billion per year; a drain to among other services education, public health, ensuring that a new generation of young criminals will fill offending shoes of their incarcerated brethren.” (Rand Research Brief, California’s New Three-Strikes Law: Benefits, Costs, and Alternatives, Rand Corporation, 1994).

This law significantly increases the prison sentences of persons who are convicted of felonies who have been previously convicted of a violent or serious felony, and it also limits the ability of these offenders to receive a punishment other than a prison sentence for crimes such as: murder, robbery, burglary, assault, and felonies of the like. The major initial impacts of this law are several, all of great importance. The first is the fact that thousands of cases are being prosecuted. “As of the end of August 1994 (six months after enactment of the law) there were more than 7,400 second and third-strike cases filed statewide...as of the end of November 1994, more than 5,000 second and third-strike cases have been filed with the courts.” (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 1995).

There have also been less guilty pleas taken by defendants, and with this, a significant increase in jury trials. Due to the three-strike law, more defendants are refusing to plea bargain and instead are deciding to take their cases to jury trial, as they understand the much longer prison sentences they could face. “Historically, more than 90 percent of all felony cases statewide are disposed of through plea bargaining…Available data indicate that only about 14 percent of all second-strike cases and only about 6 percent of all third-strike cases have been disposed of through plea bargaining.” (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 1995).

Due to this law, there has been an increase in the number of persons held in county jail while awaiting trial, and as well, there has statistically been less immediate impact on state prison population than was expected. Some of the other impacts include: the early release of sentenced offenders from county jails; an increase in jail security; the augmentations to budgets of criminal justice agencies in some countries; and certain behavior responses from some judges, juries, and victims.

Although in the beginning this law seeming rather appealing to most, there was also the argument on whether or not it was realistic to expect a law such as this to help reduce crime. After all, the statistics show that in reviewing the characteristics of offenders who have been charged under the three-strikes law so far: “…about 70 percent of all second and third-strikes are for nonviolent and nonserious offenses.” (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 1995). Also there is the fact that out of the offenders that have been convicted thus far under the three-strike law: “…approximately 19 percent were for a violent or serious offence.” (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 1995). A RAND Corporation study also estimated that the overall reduction in violent crime as a result of the measure would be substantial, yet the opinions of some on this are not so sure.

On the one hand, many of the defendants who are sent to jail under the three-strike law are non-violent criminal offenders, which means that most of them are into petty theft or drug dealing; there is obviously nothing wrong with this, only that the intent of the three-strikes law was to stop and convict violent criminals. Another factor is that the prisons are all so full that more will have to be built immediately; with tax payers footing the bill.

On the other hand, it is thought to be that for the most part, if a criminal does not reform after two felony convictions, then it is unlikely they ever will at all. This is a somewhat stereotypical and automatic way of thinking, but results show this is factual.

The theory of the three-strike law – which seems to work at least part of the time – is that once a two-time offender realizes what a lengthy sentence they will receive if they commit crime again, they will deter from doing so. The three-strike law is not the first law of its sort, although it is certainly tougher and more seemingly determined than any others; tough-on-crime laws like this have contributed to the nation-wide drop in crime rates over the last decade. “Three-strike laws can help reduce the prison population by serving as a deterrent to potential repeat criminals.” (Murphy, 2000).

From my review, I have come to the conclusion that yes, I do agree with a policy that calls for “spending billions on incarceration throwing money into the wind”, for several important reasons. For one, I personally believe that although the three-strikes law was originally intended for violent criminals, what does it really matter if that’s not the category that it actual particulates? In other words, regardless of whether the three-strike law has resulted in charging and/or convicting violent or non-violent criminals, they are all still criminals, and should be taken off the streets. I certainly do not object to my money being used for something of this sort, I do not believe that just because the intention of the three-strike law resulted to not be exactly what was expected, that after looking at the statistics it is quite obvious to see that it is still having an incredibly positive result.