Drugs And The Three Strikes Law: Who Does It Affect?

The three-strikes law, which has been implemented in the United States since at least 1952, is a habitual offender law that imposes harsher sentences on individuals who have been convicted of certain felonies, usually violent crimes, on multiple occasions. The law, which is part of the United States Justice Department's Anti-Violence Strategy, aims to drastically increase the punishment for repeat offenders. While the specifics of the law vary from state to state, it generally requires a person convicted of a felony with two or more previous serious or violent felony convictions to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison, with or without parole. The law has been criticised for imposing disproportionate penalties and for focusing too much on street crime rather than white-collar crime.

Which drugs are included in the 'three-strikes' law?

The three-strikes law applies to a range of drug-related offences, but the specifics vary by state. In general, three-strikes laws apply to serious and violent felony offences, and some states include non-violent offences, such as drug crimes, in their three-strikes laws.

In California, for example, the three-strikes law includes providing hard drugs to a minor and drug possession. The state's original three-strikes law, Proposition 184, was amended in 2012 by Proposition 36, which required that only a third conviction for a violent or serious felony would result in a 25-years-to-life sentence. Prior to this amendment, any felony conviction would trigger a mandatory sentence if the defendant had two prior strikes.

In South Carolina, the three-strikes law applies to "serious offences", which include many drug offences, as well as violent crimes like burglary, robbery, and arson. Two or three convictions under these provisions will result in a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

The federal three-strikes law, which was enacted in 1994 as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, applies to serious violent felonies and drug trafficking crimes. This law mandates a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for those convicted of three serious felonies or crimes related to drug trafficking.

How does the law vary between states?

The application of three-strikes laws varies considerably from state to state. While the laws generally deal with serious and violent felony offences, the specific crimes that count as "strikes" vary by state. For example, some states include non-violent offences like treason, drug trafficking, felony theft, and bribery.

The number of felonies that trigger a life sentence also differs from state to state. In some states, two strikes or felonies can result in a sentence of life in prison without parole. In others, it takes three or even four strikes to get a life sentence. For instance, in Maryland, a fourth conviction for a crime of violence mandates a sentence of life imprisonment without parole.

Additionally, some states impose enhanced penalties after just one strike on a person's record. For example, a state's law might double a defendant's sentence upon conviction for a second serious felony and impose a life sentence for a third serious felony conviction.

The length of time between the crimes, the seriousness of the crimes, the order in which the crimes were committed, and the discretion of the judge in sentencing under local laws can also impact the application of three-strikes laws.

Many states have also passed reforms to their original three-strikes laws, giving judges more flexibility in sentencing and allowing for the possibility of parole.

How does the law affect the court system?

Three-strikes laws have a significant impact on the court system.

The laws, which have been implemented in the United States since at least 1952, are part of the country's Anti-Violence Strategy. They require a person who is convicted of a felony and has one or two other previous serious convictions to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison, with or without parole depending on the jurisdiction. The laws aim to drastically increase the punishment for those who continue to commit offences after being convicted of one or two serious crimes.

The three-strikes law significantly increases the prison sentences of persons convicted of a felony who have been previously convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies. It limits the ability of these offenders to receive a punishment other than a life sentence. The laws are designed to ensure that certain kinds of offenders, often referred to as "career criminals" or "habitual offenders", receive substantially more severe penalties for reoffending, sometimes up to life imprisonment.

The laws have been criticised for imposing disproportionate penalties and focusing too much on street crime rather than white-collar crime. They have also been criticised for clogging the court system, as defendants take cases to trial in an attempt to avoid life sentences. This also clogs jails, as defendants must be detained while waiting for these trials because the likelihood of a life sentence makes them a flight risk.

The three-strikes law also affects the court system by reducing the number of guilty pleas, increasing the number of jury trials, and increasing the number of persons held in county jail awaiting trial. It can also push less serious cases out of courts, as more cases go to trial, and can result in the early release of sentenced offenders from county jails.

The laws also have financial implications for the court system, as they require additional resources for prosecution and incarceration. They can also lead to budgetary augmentations for criminal justice agencies in some counties.

What are the criticisms of the law?

Three-strikes laws have faced a lot of criticism since their implementation. Here are some of the main criticisms:

Disproportionate Penalties

The three-strikes laws have been criticised for imposing penalties that are extremely disproportionate to the crimes committed. For example, if a law covers a broad range of crimes, a defendant can face many years in prison for a less serious felony conviction. If the three-strikes law was not in effect, that defendant may have received a significantly shorter sentence for the same crime.

Discriminatory Application

Another criticism of three-strikes laws is based on the court's discretion. In some cases, a judge may apply a penalty discriminatorily based on the defendant's socioeconomic status or race.

Inclusion of Wobbler Offenses

Wobbler offenses are crimes that can be considered either a misdemeanour or a felony, depending on the circumstances. Three-strikes laws have been criticised for allowing courts to impose harsher sentences by considering wobbler offenses as felonies, even if the crime committed would normally be classified as a misdemeanour. This creates a discrepancy in sentencing, as the order in which the crimes were committed can affect whether or not the three-strikes law is triggered.

Ineffectiveness and Increased Crime Rates

Some critics argue that three-strikes laws are ineffective at deterring crime and may even contribute to increased crime rates. While studies have shown a decline in violent crime rates after the implementation of three-strikes laws, critics argue that this decline may be due to other factors such as improved policing, prevention efforts, changes in drug markets, local rules, and economic conditions. Additionally, most violent crimes happen in the heat of passion, and it is unlikely that someone would consider harsh punishments and legal consequences in the moment.

Increased Incarceration and Recidivism

Three-strikes laws have been criticised for increasing incarceration rates and recidivism. By imposing longer prison sentences, these laws contribute to mass incarceration and overcrowding in prisons, especially in states like California. A survey by the Pew Center found that around 46% of people released from prison in 1999 and 44% of those released in 2004 were reincarcerated within three years.

Impact on the Criminal Justice System

The American Bar Association and the ACLU have criticised three-strikes laws for their impact on the criminal justice system, including courts, prosecutors, defence lawyers, and judges. These laws have been blamed for increasing the number of costly and time-consuming trials, as defendants are more likely to take their cases to trial in an attempt to avoid life sentences. Additionally, the pre-defined sentences under three-strikes laws have been criticised for taking away the discretionary power of judges and affecting their role as "trier of facts".

Threat to Law Enforcement Officers

A study by the Office of Justice Programs found that after the implementation of three-strikes laws, there was a 44% increase in police murders, in contrast to an average of 1.2% per year before the laws were enacted. This suggests that three-strikes laws may pose a threat to the safety of law enforcement officers.

How does the law affect sentencing?

Three-strikes laws, also known as habitual offender laws, have been implemented in the United States since at least 1952. These laws are designed to increase the prison sentences of repeat offenders and limit their ability to receive a punishment other than a life sentence. The laws apply to those convicted of a felony who have previously been convicted of two or more violent crimes or serious felonies. While the laws vary from state to state, they generally require a minimum sentence of 25 years to life for three-time repeat offenders with multiple prior serious or violent felony convictions.

The impact of three-strikes laws on sentencing is significant. The laws impose much longer sentences on offenders, with some states mandating life imprisonment without the possibility of parole for a third conviction. This can result in a disproportionate penalty, particularly if the third strike is for a non-violent offence. For example, in California, a person convicted of a felony who has two prior serious or violent felony convictions would receive a sentence of life imprisonment with a minimum term of 25 years for their third strike. This is the case even if the third strike offence is non-violent, such as drug possession.

The application of three-strikes laws can vary depending on factors such as the length of time between crimes, the seriousness of the crimes, the order in which they were committed, and the discretion of the judge. Some states, such as California, do not consider the length of time between convictions, so a third strike may apply even when previous felony convictions occurred many years prior. In other states, such as Maryland, a fourth conviction for a violent crime will result in a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole.

The laws also have a significant impact on the criminal justice system, increasing the length of sentences and the prison population. This, in turn, has fiscal implications for state and local governments, with increased costs for prison construction, operations, and healthcare for ageing inmates.

In terms of public safety, the impact of three-strikes laws is less clear. While supporters argue that the laws reduce crime by removing repeat offenders from society and deterring potential offenders, critics claim that the laws have a modest impact on crime rates and may even encourage criminals to commit more serious offences.

Frequently asked questions