Three Strikes Laws

Three Strikes Laws

It’s been over a dozen years since arguably the most controversial law in California’s recent history was passed. This law imposes harsher criminal penalties on recidivists, and completely reframes the debate on how crime should be managed (Walsh xi). This law is enacted by a state’s government in the U.S. and makes it mandatory for the state courts to hand out a minimum of twenty five years of incarceration for a criminal’s third convicted felony. I will first be explaining how and why the Three Strikes law has been supported since its introduction in California and other states and what it is that makes this law so popular. Next, I will argue against these points and explain the many reasons why people think this law is wrong. Finally, I will explain the neutral side of this argument. Most people can’t decide how to side on the issue. Many citizens of California like the idea of the rule but think something about it is wrong. I will explain the many different options that these people have come up with.

Three Strikes Law Support

“At the heart of every penal policy is one practical goal: to prevent people from committing crime” (Walsh 1). Mike Reynolds questioned, "At the end of the day does it really matter how much money we are wasting if we are saving even one life?" This man had a daughter named Kimber, “who dreamed of a career in fashion and was buried in a silver lame prom dress of her own design” (Gross 1). Kimber was buried not because of natural causes, but because her life was cut short when she was shot in the back of the head by a repeat felon for doing absolutely nothing wrong. Mike Reynolds desperately wanted harsher penalties for the person that took his daughters' life; he went to great lengths to try and make this a reality. Unfortunately, he could come nowhere near the 400,000 signatures on the petition that it would have taken to make his dream an actuality. Somehow this loss of life was not enough to get this law started. It took the loss of a twelve-year-old girl named Polly Klaas to force people to get behind the Three Strikes sentencing law. This girl was dragged from her home, killed, and left in the woods. Again, this murder was committed by a repeat offender. A grieving father, Mike Reynolds, would not let his voice go unheard and used his daughter Kimber, as well as Polly as martyrs to his cause. Reynolds proclaims, “What these crimes have done is show people that you can do all the right things and it doesn’t matter. You can lock your door, stay in the right neighborhoods. But when you come up against one of these creeps, the rules don’t matter. They’re hunting you” (Walsh 39). Many people are in favor of this law because these stories really strike home. Even if it costs the taxpayer extra money or other small problems, it keeps bad people off the street and keeps loved ones safe. The question that this view begs to ask is, wouldn’t you want harsher penalties when at any minute your little sister or daughter could be dragged from your home and killed?

Statistics show that this law is not only keeping the bad guys in jail, and off the street, it is also acting as a deterrent for would-be criminals. The violent crime rate skyrocketed in California from 1970 until 1994 when the Three Strikes Law came into effect in California. The numbers speak for themselves: 600 violent crimes in 1970 to nearly 1200 in 1994 (Greenwood 5). These numbers have dramatically declined to 700 since the introduction of the new law proving in itself that this law is not only locking up the bad guys for good but is actually preventing these criminals from committing more crimes.

Three Strikes Law Opposition

For every prisoner that gets sentenced to jail for one year, it costs taxpayers 27,000 dollars (Walsh 117). In 2001, there were 6,615 people serving this 25 year sentence (Pillsbury 7). This means the state is guaranteed to spend an extra one hundred and seventy eight million dollars on just keeping these drains on the economy alive. This figure doesn’t even include inflation, prisoners that are serving less than the twenty five year term, or recidivists that have yet to be convicted of their crimes. In other words, this number is the lowest possibile amount that the state would spend on this law and is probably nowhere near the actual amount it would cost in the end. This figure is significantly higher than any other state. This makes sense due to the fact that California has the highest population. California also has the highest state debt in country, even per capita, making funding this law nearly impossible. To be exact, the state of California is upwards of forty-four billion dollars in the hole (Cal Facts 2006). Some people would love to keep prisoners in jail and throw away the key while others would not. The fact of the matter is it’s not feasible for the state to continue spending money it doesn’t have. It is obvious that this is a major contributor to the state debt and should be rethought; it has been ignored for a long enough time and is essentially just digging California into a deeper hole.

By California making use of the Three Strikes law, it has done much more than putting more financial burden on the state that it cannot bare to have. This law has also put the states peace officers in more danger in certain areas. In the general Los Angeles area, where repeat offenders is highest, there has been a 113% increase in crimes with police officer victims when repeat offenders are involved (Johnson 455). By knowing what their penalty is going to be, these criminals essentially have nothing to lose and will avoid arrest at all cost.

People who oppose this law claim that the law does not actually deter the criminals who are committing the crimes. In 10 Reasons to Oppose "3 Strikes, You're Out", an article written by an anonymous author, it is explained that “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” (anonymous para. 5) The total number of the amount of crime has lowered simply because it would have lowered without the implication of the Strikes Law. The author also explains that most recidivists don’t expect to get caught in the first place so they would not be deterred by the actions of the crime system that would take place if they were actually caught. Of the thirty four million