Three Strikes Law: A Historical Overview

The Three Strikes and You're Out law was enacted in California in 1994, in response to the murders of Kimber Reynolds and Polly Klaas. The law mandated a life sentence for any crime, regardless of severity, if the defendant had two prior convictions for serious or violent crimes. The law was intended to keep murderers, rapists, and child molesters behind bars, but over half of those sentenced under the law are serving time for nonviolent crimes. The law has been criticised for disproportionately affecting minority populations, with over 45% of inmates serving life sentences under the law being African American. The law has also been criticised for its negative impact on the state budget, with California's State Auditor estimating that the law adds over $19 billion to the state's prison budget. In 2012, California voters passed Proposition 36, which eliminated life sentences for non-serious, non-violent crimes.

The origins of the law

The origins of the three-strikes law can be traced back to the early 20th century, when the state of New York implemented a Persistent Felony Offender law. However, the first true "three-strikes" law was enacted in 1993 in Washington, followed by California in 1994. This law, also known as the "Three Strikes and You're Out" law, imposed a life sentence for any crime committed by an individual with two prior convictions for serious or violent felonies.

The concept of the three-strikes law is derived from the popular baseball metaphor, "three strikes and you're out," which refers to a batter who has three chances to hit a pitched ball before striking out. The intent behind enacting these laws was to deter habitual offenders, reduce the crime rate, and protect the public from repeat offenders. However, the law also came with negative consequences, including mass incarceration, high trial costs, and overburdened courts.

In California, the three-strikes law was passed in response to the tragic murders of Kimber Reynolds and Polly Klaas. The law was designed to keep violent offenders, such as murderers, rapists, and child molesters, behind bars. However, it soon became apparent that the law disproportionately affected minority populations, with over 45% of inmates serving life sentences under the law being African American.

The three-strikes law in California also had a significant impact on the criminal justice system, leading to thousands of cases being prosecuted and a decrease in guilty pleas by defendants. The law also resulted in an increase in jury trials and the number of persons held in county jails awaiting trial. Additionally, the law contributed to the overcrowding of prisons, as the number of prisoners serving life sentences increased.

While the three-strikes law aimed to reduce crime and protect the public, it faced criticism for its harsh and rigid nature, with some offenders receiving lengthy sentences for minor crimes. As a result, reform initiatives, such as the First Step Act, were introduced to ease mandatory minimum sentencing and provide judges with more discretion in sentencing.

The impact of the law

The "Three Strikes and You're Out" law has had a significant impact on the criminal justice system and public safety in California and other states that have enacted similar legislation. Here are some key impacts of the law:

Increased Prison Population and Costs: The law has led to a significant increase in the prison population, particularly for second and third strikers. This has resulted in higher costs for the state, with estimates suggesting that the Three Strikes law adds over $19 billion to California's prison budget. The law has also contributed to the aging of the prison population, as inmates serve longer sentences, leading to increased healthcare and security costs.

Disproportionate Impact on Minorities and Mentally Ill: Statistics show that the law disproportionately affects minority populations, with African Americans making up the largest group of second and third strikers. It also disproportionately impacts mentally ill and physically disabled defendants.

Ineffectiveness in Deterring Crime: While the law was intended to reduce crime by removing repeat offenders from society and acting as a deterrent, its effectiveness in achieving these goals is questionable. Some studies suggest that the law has not had a significant impact on deterring crime, and there is evidence that it may even lead to an increase in violence as criminals facing mandatory life sentences are more likely to resist arrest or attempt prison escapes.

Impact on the Court System: The law has resulted in more criminal cases going to trial, as defendants facing mandatory life sentences are less likely to plead bargain. This has increased the workload and costs for prosecutors, defense lawyers, and judges.

Limiting Judicial Discretion: By making life sentences without parole mandatory, the law takes away sentencing discretion from judges, who can no longer consider mitigating circumstances or the potential for rehabilitation when imposing sentences.

Mixed Results in Public Safety: While supporters of the law argue that it has improved public safety by keeping dangerous criminals behind bars, critics point out that over half of the inmates sentenced under the law are serving sentences for nonviolent crimes. Criminologists agree that life sentences for non-violent repeat offenders do not necessarily improve public safety.

It is important to note that the impact of the law has been subject to ongoing debate and evaluation, with some studies suggesting a more positive impact on public safety and crime deterrence than others.

Criticisms of the law

The "Three Strikes and You're Out" law has been criticised for various reasons. Here are some of the criticisms:

Clogging the Court and Prison Systems

The law has been criticised for clogging the court system with defendants taking cases to trial to avoid life sentences. It also overcrowds jails with defendants who must be detained while waiting for their trials, as they are deemed a flight risk due to the potential life sentence.

High Costs

Life imprisonment is an expensive correctional option, and the geriatric prison population created by these laws is far more costly to care for. The high costs are compounded by the fact that many prisoners serving life sentences are elderly and require more expensive healthcare services.

Disproportionate Impact on Minorities

The law disproportionately impacts minority offenders, particularly African American men, who are overrepresented in criminal justice statistics. This is partly due to the inclusion of drug offenses as prior "strikes," which disproportionately affect minority communities.

Disproportionate Penalties

The law has been criticised for imposing disproportionate penalties, as non-violent felonies can count as a third strike, resulting in a life sentence. For example, people have received life sentences for stealing socks, baby shoes, or a slice of pizza.

Focus on Street Crime

Critics argue that the law focuses too much on street crime rather than white-collar crime. It has been noted that Wall Street crooks often receive lighter sentences compared to those imprisoned for life over minor crimes.

Ineffective Deterrent

Despite claims that the law would deter violent crime, critics argue that most violent crimes are not premeditated. They are committed impulsively, in the heat of passion, or under the influence, and the prospect of a life sentence is unlikely to deter such acts.

Increased Violence

There are concerns that the law could lead to an increase in violence against police, corrections officers, and the public. Criminals facing mandatory life sentences may be more likely to resist arrest, kill witnesses, or attempt prison escapes.

Attempts to reform the law

In 2012, California voters enacted the Three Strikes Reform Act (Proposition 36) to address the harshest and unintended consequences of the sentencing law. Prop. 36 eliminated life sentences for non-serious, non-violent crimes and established a procedure for inmates sentenced to life in prison for minor third-strike crimes to petition for a reduced sentence in court. To win a reduced sentence, a court must find that the prisoner no longer poses an unreasonable threat to public safety.

Proposition 36 was the first voter initiative since the Civil War to reduce the sentences of inmates currently behind bars. In the first eight months of its enactment, over 1,000 prisoners were released from custody under Prop. 36, with a recidivism rate of less than 2%. Proposition 36 has saved California taxpayers between $10 and $13 million, and if the reform is applied to all eligible inmates, it is estimated that Californians would save almost $1 billion over the next ten years.

Despite these successes, much work remains to be done. More than 2,000 Proposition 36 cases are currently pending in Superior Courts throughout California, and in Los Angeles alone, over 850 cases filed under Proposition 36 are awaiting hearings. As a result, LDF and the Three Strikes Project have advocated for a more prompt review of Proposition 36 cases.

In October 2013, LDF filed an amicus curiae brief in Coleman v. Brown and Plata v. Brown, requiring California to dramatically reduce its prison population to comply with the United States Constitution. LDF's brief calls on the State of California to expedite the implementation of Proposition 36 and provide reentry services to prisoners released under the proposition.

In addition to California, other states and countries have also made attempts to reform their respective three-strikes laws. In 2010, New Zealand enacted a similar three-strikes law called the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010. However, in 2022, the New Zealand Parliament passed the Three Strikes Legislation Repeal Bill, which repealed the Sentencing and Parole Reform Act. Nevertheless, in 2024, the New Zealand Parliament reinstated a three-strikes sentencing regime.

The future of the law

The "Three Strikes and You're Out" law was passed in California in 1994, with 72% of voters in favour. The law imposed a life sentence for almost any crime, no matter how minor, if the defendant had two prior convictions for serious or violent crimes as defined by the California Penal Code. The law was enacted in response to the murders of Kimber Reynolds and Polly Klaas.

Since its inception, the law has been modified to address its harshest consequences. In 2012, the Three Strikes Reform Act ("Proposition 36") was passed, eliminating life sentences for non-serious, non-violent crimes. This allowed inmates serving life sentences for minor third-strike crimes to petition for a reduced sentence.

Despite these reforms, the three-strikes law continues to face criticism for its disproportionate impact on certain demographics, particularly minority populations, the mentally ill, and the physically disabled. The law has also been criticised for imposing disproportionate penalties, clogging the court system, and focusing too much on street crime rather than white-collar crime.

The future of the three-strikes law remains uncertain, and there are ongoing debates and areas for future research and potential legislative developments. While some argue for the law's effectiveness in reducing crime and enhancing public safety, others criticise its inflexibility and disproportionate impact on certain communities.

One area that warrants further exploration is the long-term societal impact of the three-strikes law. While there has been a reduction in criminal activity in some states, it is essential to examine the law's effects on specific communities, particularly those disproportionately affected by the law, such as minority groups. Additionally, the potential disparities in the application of the law and its effects on recidivism rates need to be comprehensively investigated.

Another aspect to consider is the economic impact of the law. The three-strikes law has significant financial implications for states, with increased incarceration rates leading to higher costs for prison resources. The long-term imprisonment of habitual offenders may not be sustainable, and the economic and social consequences for communities and families need to be carefully evaluated.

The debate surrounding the three-strikes law highlights the need for a balanced and evidence-based approach to criminal justice policy. As the landscape of criminal justice continues to evolve, ongoing scrutiny and thoughtful discourse are necessary to shape the future trajectory of the three-strikes law and address the complexities of dealing with habitual offenders.

While the future of the three-strikes law remains to be determined, it is clear that further research, legislative developments, and a nuanced understanding of its complexities are crucial to inform policy decisions and ensure a fair and effective criminal justice system.

Frequently asked questions