Three Strikes And You

’re Out Essay, Research Paper

Running head: THREE STRIKES

Three Strikes and You’re Out

Kelly Jay Stewart

CRIM 440

21 November 2000

Three Strikes and You’re Out

Samuel Walker, author of Sense and Nonsense about Crime

and Drugs, presented us in his book with forty-eight

propositions that dealt with crime, drugs, and our efforts

toward getting rid of these problems. A few of these

propositions informed us on positive actions taking place in

our criminal justice system, but the majority of them told

us what was not working to fight crime and drugs. One of

those propositions that was a negative aspect of our justice

system today in Mr. Walker’s eyes was the “three strikes and

you’re out” laws (referred to here after as three strikes

laws). He gives numerous reasons why this law is not

considered to be an effective one. This paper will first

explain Walker’s view on the issue and then review some of

the current research and opinions on the matter.

Samuel Walker conducted very thorough research on the

propositions he presented to us in his book. His twentieth

proposition read as follows; “ ‘Three strikes and you’re

out’ laws are a terrible crime policy” (Walker, 1998: 140).

Walker justifies his claim by asking and then explaining

three questions. The first question is whether the law

would actually be implemented. Walker states that “hardly

any states were using there three strikes laws” (Walker,

1998: 138). California is leading the nation in

prosecutions of offenders through the current two and three

strikes laws (Tischler, 1999). Fifteen of the twenty-three

states that have three strikes laws have incarcerated

between zero and six inmates since 1993 according to The

Campaign for an Effective Crime Policy (Tischler, 1999).

The second reason Walker cites is the impact of the

three strikes laws on the criminal justice system. These

laws are affecting the system by overcrowding prisons,

subjecting criminals to excessive prison terms, and costing

society entirely too much money (Walker, 1998). The three

strikes law in California stipulates that your first two

“strikes” are acquired when you commit two serious or

violent felonies. However the third strike can be any type

of felony, violent or nonviolent (Schafer, 1999). For this

reason, more and more criminals are being put away,

especially in California, for third strikes that are

nonviolent and relatively small crimes and overcrowding our

prisons at a fast rate.

In 1996, males under the age of twenty-five accounted

for forty-five percent of the individuals arrested for index

crimes (Schafer, 1999). This raises questions for skeptics

of three strikes laws. Why incarcerate offenders for life

when their criminal tendencies statistically drop after a

certain age. These opponents assert that three strikes laws

subject offenders to over-incarceration. This leads to the

next issue concerning money. Burr states in his study

comparing the impact of the three strikes law in California

to the impact in Canada that “over-incarceration does not

serve the interest of justice or the interests of the

taxpayer” (2000: 5). Walker estimates that if California

were to implement the new law to the full extent for the

next twenty-five years, the state would have to pay an extra

$5.5 billion (1998). A significant piece of this estimate

would be funding the incarceration of elderly prisoners who

require more funds to maintain (Walker, 1998).

The third reason Walker uses to support his proposition

is that the law will not reduce crime (1998). He supports

this claim by stating that there is no evidence that crime

has been reduced by these laws and that the law is not

consistently enforced (1998). Burr affirms this statement

in his own study by stating that “no study has demonstrated

that the three strikes law has reduced violence” (2000). As

stated earlier, the three strikes law has not been

administered by all the states that currently have it

either. By 1997, twenty-four states and the federal

government had adopted some form of three strikes mandatory

sentencing laws (Schafer, 1999). Walker suggests as well

that three strikes laws are nothing new and that “most

states have had some kind of habitual offender law for many

decades” (1998).

There are two additional considerations that have been

documented supporting Walker’s claim that three strikes is a

“terrible crime policy.” The first is that it has forced

more criminals both underground and to become more violent.

Dannie Martin, an ex-convict with seven prior felonies on

his record, now a novel writer suggests through his

observations that this new law has only forced criminals to

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать