Marijuana And Three Strikes: Law Application?

The three strikes law, also known as three strikes and you're out, is a controversial piece of legislation that has resulted in a significant number of people being imprisoned for marijuana possession. The law, which was enacted in the 1990s in states like California, mandates a life sentence for any individual convicted of a felony who has previously been convicted of one or more serious or violent felonies. While the law was designed to keep violent offenders like murderers, rapists, and child molesters behind bars, it has led to a disproportionate number of people being sentenced to life imprisonment for non-violent crimes, including marijuana possession. This has raised concerns about the fairness and effectiveness of the law, with critics arguing that it results in excessive punishment for minor drug offenses and disproportionately impacts people of color.

Mandatory life sentences for marijuana possession under three strikes laws

In the United States, the "three strikes" law has been a topic of much debate, with many questioning the fairness and effectiveness of such legislation. This law, which was first implemented in 1994, aims to drastically increase the punishment for individuals convicted of more than two serious felonies, which can include petty theft, drug possession, kidnapping, rape, and murder. Under this law, offenders face a mandatory state prison term of at least 25 years to life.

One of the most controversial aspects of the "three strikes" law is its application to marijuana-related offenses. In states like California, Missouri, and Alabama, individuals have received life sentences for possessing cannabis, regardless of the quantity or intent. This means that a small-time criminal with two prior convictions for minor crimes can receive a potential life sentence for a third marijuana-related offense.

For example, Lee Carroll Brooker, a 75-year-old disabled military veteran from Alabama, received a life sentence without parole for growing cannabis plants, despite his intentions to use it for medicinal purposes. Similarly, Cornell Hood II from New Orleans was handed a life sentence under Louisiana's repeat offender law for possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute.

Critics of the "three strikes" law argue that it results in excessive punishment for non-violent offenders, particularly for those convicted of marijuana possession. A study by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco found that twice as many defendants have been sentenced under California's "three strikes" law for marijuana possession than for murder, rape, and kidnapping combined. Furthermore, 85% of those sentenced under the law had been convicted of a non-violent offense, and the law disproportionately affects minorities, with blacks being sent to prison at a rate 13 times higher than whites.

The high cost of incarcerating citizens for life for non-violent marijuana offenses has also been a point of contention. It costs taxpayers between $40,000 and $60,000 per year to keep someone in prison for life, and with the United States already having the largest prison population in the world, there are questions about the effectiveness and affordability of this approach.

Racial disparities in three strikes sentences

Racial disparities in sentencing have been observed in the application of three-strikes laws, with African Americans disproportionately impacted. In California, African Americans are imprisoned under the three-strikes law at a rate 13 times that of whites, despite making up only 7% of the state's population. This disparity is reflected in Illinois as well, where Black people are imprisoned at nearly 10 times the rate of white people, and in the federal system, where a disproportionate number of those serving life sentences under the "Three Strikes" drug law are Black.

A study examining racial and ethnic disparities in California's three-strikes law found that racial biases were present in the sentencing of African-American, American Indian, Latino, and Caucasian offenders. The study utilized data on 171,000 inmates in the California prison system and found that African-American and American Indian offenders were significantly more likely than whites and Latinos to receive third-strike sentences, regardless of the nature of their offense. The same study observed that Latino offenders were significantly less likely than African Americans to receive third-strike sentences, which may be due to leniency in sentencing or deportation of foreign-born defendants.

The racial disparities in three-strikes sentencing have been attributed to various factors, including racial imbalances in the staffs of district attorneys' offices, charging decisions, rates of arrest, and community resources. The over-representation of African Americans in three-strikes sentencing has been described as "absolutely indefensible" and indicative of a racist and punitive sentencing scheme.

The impact of three-strikes laws on minority communities cannot be overlooked, as these laws contribute to the over-incarceration of people of color and have been criticized for their harsh and disproportionate impact. The high cost of incarceration, both financially and in terms of human lives, is a significant consequence of these laws.

The cost of three strikes sentencing

The "three strikes" law has been criticised for its financial costs, with some states spending billions of dollars annually on state prisons. This cost is expected to increase as prisoners serving life sentences for "third strikes" continue to age, as incarcerating elderly people is 2-5 times more expensive due to the need for medical care and other accommodations.

The law has also been blamed for delaying civil trials, overcrowding jails, and causing fiscal difficulties for counties. The requirement for mandatory life sentences means that defendants are taking cases to trial in an attempt to avoid life sentences, clogging the court system. Additionally, defendants who refuse to plea-bargain must be detained while waiting for their trials, filling jails.

The "three strikes" law has also been criticised for disproportionately targeting people of colour. In California, blacks are being sent to prison at a rate 13 times that of whites, and while they make up only 7% of the state's population, they account for 31% of the state's prisoners and 43% of those sentenced under the "three strikes" law. Similarly, in Illinois, Black people are imprisoned at nearly 10 times the rate of white people, and more than 75% of those serving life sentences in the state are Black.

The law has also been criticised for imposing disproportionate penalties and focusing too much on street crime rather than white-collar crime. In some cases, defendants have been sentenced to life imprisonment for non-violent, minor drug offences. For example, in California, twice as many defendants have been imprisoned under the "three strikes" law for marijuana possession as for murder, rape, and kidnapping combined.

The "three strikes" law has also been found to have limited effectiveness in deterring crime. A 2004 study found that the law did not have a significant effect on deterring crime, and another study found that three-strike laws may push previously convicted criminals to commit more serious offences, as they face a long jail sentence regardless of the type of their next crime.

The ineffectiveness of three strikes laws in reducing crime

Three-strikes laws have been widely criticised for their ineffectiveness in reducing crime rates. Research has shown that these laws have not been effective in reducing crime rates and have instead been associated with an increase in homicide rates in some areas.

In California, for example, twice as many defendants have been imprisoned under the law for marijuana possession as for murder, rape and kidnapping combined, according to a study by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco. The study also found that 85% of those receiving stiffer sentences under the law had been convicted most recently of a non-violent offence. This indicates that three-strike laws disproportionately target non-violent offenders, which can result in resources being spent on individuals who do not pose a serious threat to society.

Furthermore, three-strikes laws have been criticised for their disproportionate impact on minorities and the poor, contributing to racial disparities in the criminal justice system. In California, blacks are being sent to prison at a rate 13 times that of whites, and they constitute 43% of those sentenced under the new law, despite making up only 7% of the state's population.

In addition to being ineffective in reducing crime, three-strikes laws have also been associated with negative consequences such as increased incarceration rates, prison overcrowding, higher trial costs, and a threat to law enforcement officers. The laws have also been criticised for taking away discretionary power from judges and affecting their role as "triers of facts".

Overall, while the intention behind three-strikes laws may be to deter habitual offenders and reduce crime, the evidence suggests that these laws have not been effective in achieving these goals and have instead contributed to mass incarceration and negatively impacted the criminal justice system.

The possibility of rehabilitation for three strikes offenders

The "Three Strikes" law has been a topic of debate for years, with critics raising concerns about its fairness and effectiveness. While the law was designed to curb repeat offenses and protect communities by imposing stricter sentences on habitual offenders, it has also led to disproportionate sentences and hindered rehabilitation efforts.

The law's impact on non-violent offenders is particularly concerning. In California, for instance, twice as many defendants have been imprisoned under the "Three Strikes" law for marijuana possession as for murder, rape, and kidnapping combined, with 85% of those receiving stiffer sentences convicted of a non-violent offense. This trend is not limited to California, as similar patterns have been observed in other states such as Illinois, where hundreds of individuals have received mandatory life sentences for non-violent drug offenses.

The "Three Strikes" law also places immense pressure on the criminal justice system and correctional facilities. The mandatory sentences lead to overcrowded prisons, stretching resources thin and diverting attention from rehabilitation efforts. Critics argue that this focus on punishment undermines the potential for successful reintegration into society, perpetuating a cycle of crime.

However, it is important to recognize that there have been recent efforts to address these concerns. In 2018, the First Step Act was signed, allowing for the reconsideration of prior sentences. This legislation has provided a glimmer of hope for those seeking to correct outrageous sentences.

Additionally, some states, like Washington, have implemented their own versions of the "Three Strikes" law with key differences. In Washington, the law requires a life term in prison without the possibility of parole for individuals convicted of a third strike offense. However, this law also allows for the possibility of eventual release after serving a minimum of 25 years.

While the "Three Strikes" law aims to deter and punish repeat offenders, the possibility of rehabilitation for these individuals should not be overlooked. By investing in rehabilitation and prevention programs, addressing the underlying causes of criminal behavior, and providing resources for reintegration, we can work towards reducing recidivism and creating a more just and secure society.

Frequently asked questions