Three Strikes Law: Universal Application Or Selective Use?

Three-strikes laws, also known as habitual offender laws, are a criminal sentencing structure that imposes harsher punishments on repeat offenders. These laws are in place across many US states and mandate life sentences for those who have committed three violent felonies. The laws are designed to reduce violent crime and target individuals whose behaviour has not been corrected by more conventional approaches to punishment. However, they have been criticised for imposing disproportionate penalties and for clogging up the court system with defendants taking their cases to trial.

Three-strikes laws in different states

Three-strikes laws, also known as habitual offender laws, have been implemented in the United States since at least 1952. These laws aim to deter and segregate repeat offenders by imposing harsher sentences for those with prior convictions. As of 2019, 28 states have some form of a three-strikes law, with variations in the specifics of the law across states.

California

California passed its three-strikes law, Proposition 184, in 1994 with an overwhelming majority of 72% in favour. This law mandates a sentence of 25 years to life in prison for a third felony conviction, which must be classified as violent or serious. California's law also applies to certain felonies committed when the defendant was a juvenile and does not consider the length of time between convictions.

Georgia, Montana, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina, Indiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin

These states impose a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for a third strike.

New Mexico

In New Mexico, a third striker is entitled to parole after serving 30 years.

Colorado

In Colorado, a person must serve 40 years before becoming eligible for parole.

Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin

These states have also enacted three-strikes laws, with variations in the specifics of the laws.

Criticisms and Impact

Three-strikes laws have been criticised for imposing disproportionate penalties, clogging the court system, and increasing incarceration rates and trial costs. There is debate about the efficacy of these laws in reducing crime rates, with some studies suggesting they may not have a significant deterrent effect.

Criticisms of three-strikes laws

Three-strikes laws have been criticised for various reasons. One criticism is that they clog the court system with defendants taking cases to trial to avoid life sentences, and clog jails with defendants who must be detained while waiting for these trials because the likelihood of a life sentence makes them a flight risk.

Another criticism is that life imprisonment is an expensive correctional option and potentially inefficient given that many prisoners serving these sentences are elderly and therefore both costly to provide health care services to and statistically at low risk of recidivism. Dependents of prisoners serving long sentences may also become burdensome on welfare services.

Prosecutors have also sometimes evaded three-strikes laws by processing arrests as parole violations rather than new offences, or by bringing misdemeanour charges when a felony charge would have been legally justified. There is also potential for witnesses to refuse to testify, and juries to refuse to convict, if they want to keep a defendant from receiving a life sentence. This can introduce disparities in punishments, defeating the goal of treating third-time offenders uniformly. Sometimes a non-violent felony also counts as a third strike, which thus would result in a disproportionate penalty. Three-strikes laws have thus also been criticised for imposing disproportionate penalties and focusing too much on street crime rather than white-collar crime.

Another criticism is that three-strikes laws will not deter most violent crimes. This is because most violent crimes are not premeditated. They are committed in anger, in the heat of passion or under the influence of alcohol. The prospect of a life sentence is not going to stop people who are acting impulsively, without thought to the likely consequences of their actions.

A further criticism is that three-strikes laws will have a disproportionate impact on minority offenders. Racial bias in the criminal justice system is rampant. African American men, in particular, are overrepresented in all criminal justice statistics: arrests, victimisations, incarceration and executions.

Finally, critics have argued that three-strikes laws impose life sentences on offenders whose crimes do not warrant such harsh punishment. For example, in California, an 18-year-old high school senior who pushes a classmate down to steal his Michael Jordan $150 sneakers, gets out of jail and shoplifts a jacket, and then gets out of jail again and, nine years later, gets in a fight in a bar and intentionally hits someone, breaking their nose, will be sent to prison for the rest of his life.

The impact of three-strikes laws on public safety

One of the key impacts of three-strikes laws is the increase in incarceration rates and the subsequent mass incarceration that results. The laws mandate lengthy prison sentences, including life imprisonment, for individuals convicted of certain felonies three times. This has led to a significant rise in the prison population, with a considerable number of individuals serving extended sentences or life imprisonment. This increase in incarceration rates has contributed to overcrowding in prisons and has placed a strain on judicial resources.

Another consequence of three-strikes laws is their impact on public safety through the removal of repeat offenders from society. By imposing lengthy sentences, these laws aim to incapacitate habitual offenders and prevent them from committing additional crimes. However, the laws have also been criticised for their disproportionate impact on minority and marginalised communities. Statistics show that a large percentage of individuals serving life sentences under three-strikes laws come from racial and ethnic minority groups, raising concerns about the fairness and equity of these laws.

The effectiveness of three-strikes laws in deterring crime and reducing recidivism is also debated. While some studies suggest that the laws have contributed to a decline in crime rates, others argue that the decrease in crime may be attributed to other factors such as improved law enforcement practices, economic conditions, or demographic changes. Additionally, it is argued that the threat of harsh punishments may not have a significant deterrent effect on criminal activity, particularly for crimes committed in the heat of passion or under the influence of aggression.

Furthermore, three-strikes laws have been associated with increased incarceration rates for older prisoners, who are less likely to pose a social risk. This aging prison population has led to increased costs for housing and healthcare, placing a significant burden on taxpayers. The laws have also been criticised for their impact on the criminal justice system, including increased trial costs, backlogs in courts, and the overburdening of judges, prosecutors, and defence lawyers.

In summary, while the three-strikes laws aim to improve public safety by deterring crime and incapacitating repeat offenders, their impact is complex and multifaceted. The laws have led to increased incarceration rates, particularly among minority communities, and have had mixed results in terms of deterring crime and reducing recidivism. Additionally, they have placed a strain on the criminal justice system and contributed to the aging prison population, resulting in significant fiscal consequences. The effectiveness of three-strikes laws in improving public safety remains a subject of ongoing debate and analysis.

The evolution of three-strikes laws

The concept of three-strikes laws has evolved over the years, with the first true "three-strikes" law being passed in 1993 in Washington. This law mandated a life sentence for repeat offenders with two prior convictions for serious or violent crimes. The following year, California passed its own version of the law, known as "Three Strikes and You're Out," which imposed a life sentence for any crime, regardless of its severity, if the defendant had two prior convictions for violent or serious crimes as defined by the California Penal Code.

By 2004, twenty-six states and the federal government had adopted some form of a three-strikes law, but none were as stringent as California's. The exact application of these laws varies across states, with some requiring violent crimes to trigger the mandatory sentence, while others include additional, lesser offenses.

Over time, there has been a pushback against three-strikes laws due to their harsh nature and disproportionate impact on minority and vulnerable populations. In 2012, California voters passed Proposition 36, which eliminated life sentences for non-serious and non-violent crimes, allowing inmates serving life sentences for minor third-strike crimes to petition for a reduced sentence. This marked a significant shift in the evolution of three-strikes laws, as it was the first voter initiative since the Civil War to reduce the sentences of inmates currently serving time.

The effectiveness of three-strikes laws in deterring crime and reducing recidivism rates has also been questioned. While some studies suggest that these laws have contributed to a decrease in criminal activity, others argue that they may push convicted criminals to commit more serious offenses, as the potential punishment for a minor crime is already very harsh. Additionally, three-strikes laws have been criticised for their impact on the court system, correctional facilities, and societal costs.

Three-strikes laws and the court system

Three-strikes laws have been implemented in the United States since at least 1952, as part of the Justice Department's Anti-Violence Strategy. These laws require a person convicted of a crime with two previous serious convictions to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison, with or without parole depending on the jurisdiction. The purpose of these laws is to drastically increase the punishment of those who continue to offend after being convicted of serious crimes.

The three-strikes law has a significant impact on the court system. One of the preliminary impacts of the law in California was the increase in the number of cases being prosecuted. Within six months of its enactment, there were over 7,400 second- and third-strike cases filed statewide. This increase in cases has also led to a significant rise in jury trials as defendants are less inclined to plead guilty and are instead taking their cases to trial, given the longer prison sentences they face if convicted.

The three-strikes law can also clog the court system as defendants take their cases to trial to avoid life sentences. This results in longer trials and backlogs that push less serious cases out of courts. Additionally, the law can lead to an increase in jail security as offenders charged under the law face significant prison sentences, and counties may set higher bail amounts or refuse bail altogether.

Another impact of the three-strikes law is the potential for early release of sentenced offenders from county jails. Due to the large number of three-strikes offenders awaiting trial, some counties have released more sentenced inmates to stay within their court-ordered population caps.

Furthermore, the three-strikes law can affect the behaviour of judges, juries, and victims. There is evidence that some judges are reducing minor felony charges to misdemeanours to avoid lengthy prison sentences under the law. Juries may also refuse to convict individuals for relatively minor felony offences that would result in longer sentences, and some victims may refuse to cooperate and testify in such cases.

Overall, the three-strikes law has had a significant impact on the court system, leading to an increase in cases, jury trials, and jail security, as well as potential changes in the behaviour of judges, juries, and victims.

Frequently asked questions