The three strikes law has caused tremendous controversy since the 1990s. Does it work properly as intended? Does it unjustly punish repeat petty offenders? Is it really necessary or can this decision be made by a judge? The three strikes law has now been in effect for 13 years. It came into existence due to two gruesome crimes: 12-year-old, Polly Klass was kidnapped and murdered by a parolee and the murder of 18-year-old Kimber Reynolds. Mike Reynolds said originally people “laughed off” the measure when it was first brought to them in 1993, but after the Klass case, “you either got on board or you got out of the way”
California has set the standard for the rest of the states to follow. However, California has tailored the law uniquely. It requires when convicted of a second serious or violent felony, the criminal receives double time than that received for the first conviction. Thus if he/she is convicted of a second rape and served six years for the first rape, he would minimally serve twelve for the second conviction. The third strike could be any felony as long as the criminal has committed two prior serious or violent felonies. The third strike carries a mandatory 25 years-to-life sentence on top of what the crime they committed carries. In these cases it does not have to be the same crime as long as they are both considered to be violent or serious felonies. Some of these crimes include; murder, rape, manslaughter, aggravated assault, out of state kidnapping, continuous sexual abuse of a child, penetration by a foreign object, and any felony that carries a life or death sentence.
On November 7, 2000, 60 percent of California’s voters supported an amendment to the statute (offered in Proposition 36), which scaled the law back by providing for drug treatment instead of life in prison for most of those convicted of possessing drugs. On November 2, 2004, the voters rejected an amendment (offered in Proposition 66) that would have required the third felony to be classified as “violent and/or serious. Approximately 5.5 million Voters (47.3 percent) voted in favor or proposition 66, but 6.2 million voters (52.7 percent) voted no.
After the three strikes law was initially passed, offenders were prosecuted for many low level crimes in order to prove that the legislators were going to be tough on crime, and that the law was serious. Since 1996, the number of life sentences given out has dropped significantly, and so has the number of large sentences. Consequently the prison rate has been lowered and since 1996 it has been declining almost every year. This decline can be attributed to greater selectivity by prosecutors, a general drop in crime, or the fact that many repeat offenders are now behind bars and cannot commit crimes.
More than half of those convicted of violent felonies in large urban areas between 1990 and 2002 had prior convictions. Nearly 4 in 10, or 38 percent, had some type of prior felony conviction, while an additional 18 percent had a prior misdemeanor conviction. 15 percent were guilty of a prior violent felony – murder, rape, robbery, and assault. Rapists were the least likely to have a prior conviction. When it comes to judge cases, most violent felons, 88 percent plead guilty. Of these offenders 59 percent were represented by a public defender, who works for the state. California paroles 125,000 inmates a year and 71 percent are back in prison within 18 months. Thus, by putting in the three strikes law it takes these career criminals off these streets and studies say it saves two million people from becoming victims. Nearly all the violent felons were male, 91 percent, and 41 percent were black.
The three strikes law seems to be unjustly punishing other races more frequently then whites. African Americans strike out 12 times when compared to Caucasians. This rate is peculiar considering that 28 percent of people are in prison are white and 29 percent are black. Latinos strike out 78 percent more often then whites, and only outnumber white in prison 37 percent compared to 28 percent.
In 1994, opponents of the three strikes law made five predictions as to the effects of the nation’s toughest crime law. Firstly, California prison population would double in five years, reaching 250,000 but in fact, the prison population has remained constant. Prior to the law, California’s prison population expanded 400 percent. Secondly, California would need to build 20 new prisons. Ten years later no new prisons were built and in the ten years prior to the law, California had to build 19 new prisons. Thirdly, crime reductions would be minimal at best. California has seen the longest and greatest drop in crime in those ten years since records started being recorded. California’s crime has dropped and its population has increased by one-third of what it was in 1993. Fourthly, more courts would be needed due to the clogging by defendants taking their cases to trail, but actually no new judges were needed. Lastly, there will be more deaths of police officers having to catch more desperate criminals. During the eight years prior to the law, 45 officers were killed in the line of duty, while in the first eight years after the law, 50 were killed in the line of duty. Whether pure coincidence or as a result of the implementation of the three strikes law, only one of five predictions, for those holding an oppositional stance, proved correct. The death of police officers has increased, but only marginally.
The three strikes law was purposed to target California’s most violent criminal offenders, but ironically nonviolent sentences outnumber violent sentences two to one. Nearly 65 percent of those convicted of second or third strikes were serving time in prison for nonviolent crimes. Over 600 third strikers are serving 25-to-life for drug possession, a number that is greater than the number of third-strikers in prison for second-degree murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and rape combined. Only two ex-felons were serving 25 years-to-life for petty theft a decade ago. This number soared to 354 in 2002. There are over 42,000 inmates serving three strikes sentences. This number is one fourth of total number of inmates. The cost of their incarceration will be eight billion more than it would have been if the three strikes law was never passed. Nearly five billion will be spent on nonviolent offenders, but remember in order to be sentenced under three strikes law, the criminal must have two prior violent or serious felonies. Many prisons are filling up with numerous lower-level drug dealers and petty criminal offenders. It costs the state of California and every other state about $35,000 per prisoner per year. In addition to the cost of incarceration, the employees also need to be paid. California’s state budget though, has doubled while crime rate have been cut in half.
The United States Supreme Court continues to stand by the law. On March 5, 2003, they court held by a 5-4 vote that three-strike sentences do not violate the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. On this same day the Court upheld two three strikes law convictions. Since California passed the law in 1993, 26 states have adopted or adapted some form of the three strikes law.
Critics have argued that the law violates double jeopardy. Most judges do not take this seriously. In the majority of U.S. courts, it is accepted that defendants are not at risk of double jeopardy because they are not being retired or punished again for the same set of facts from the earlier convictions. The existence of these prior convictions is being used as evidence of the defendant’s character in order to enhance the sentence for the third conviction. They have also upheld the constitutionality of using the fact of prior convictions as a factor in determining the severity of a sentence.
Since the implementation of the three strikes law fifteen years ago, significant changes have occurred. Most of these changes proved to be beneficial to society. However, other still strongly oppose it because of the few exceptions where the criminal faces extended incarceration for nonviolent crimes. The Supreme Court and voting public believe the benefits strongly outweigh the instances where the law negative effect. For years to come this topic will be debated and amended.
Jonathan Early
Article Source:http://www.articlesbase.com/national,-state,-local-articles/three-strikes-youre-out-fair-unjust-effective-1361488.html
