Three-Strikes Laws and Their Impact on the Criminal Justice System
A crime committed, large or small, always seems to follow you. This phrase is woven into society, which says if you can’t do the time then don’t do the crime. With the increase in crime rates in the United States in the 1980s, which seemed to stem from repeat offenders, Three-Strikes Laws began to be passed around the country. While originating in Washington state in 1993, California’s passage of these laws has drawn the most criticism to date. After these states passed their statutes, 20 other states applied three-strikes legislation onto existing mandatory sentencing laws. These laws have been enacted based on the belief that harsher sentencing laws deter crime and discourage future criminal behavior. This avoids the possibility of habitual offenders who have committed a “serious” violent felony out on parole and lead to a life sentence. However, the implementation of Three-Strikes laws reveals several major issues that affect society. These issues include targeting minority offenders and impacting recidivism and crime rates negatively. Yet, these laws have not led to a demonstrable reduction in crime and need to be reexamined.
The murder of a twelve-year-old girl named Polly Klaas, who was kidnapped and murdered by a paroled repeat offender (“Klaas Left Enduring Legacy” 2014), led to the introduction of Three-Strikes law. Three-Strikes Law was laid out in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It aimed at enhancing the existing legislation and the criminal justice system in terms of preventing violent offenses and cases of recidivism when convicted felons return to jail. The statute provided mandatory life imprisonment of a convicted felon if they had been sentenced in a federal court of a “serious violent felony” or “strike”, having two or more prior convictions in a federal or state court and at least one of those offenses being a serious violent felony (“California’s Three Strikes Sentencing Law 2017). To get a better understanding of how and when these laws apply to a convicted person, the statute defines a serious violent felony as murder, manslaughter, sex offenses, kidnapping, robbery and any other punishable offense where the conviction has a sentence of ten or more years including an element of the use of force or involving significant risk of force.
The thought behind these laws was well-intended. If Polly Klaas’ murderer had been sentenced to life imprisonment for one of his earlier felonies, then maybe he would not be able to kill Klaas. Emotions ran high after the Klaas case which created substantial backing for these laws, however, issues began to become apparent. These laws disproportionally impact minority offenders. Racial bias in the criminal justice system has always been an issue. Not even two years after the implementation of these laws, according to a nonprofit called the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice stated that in California, about 43% of the third strike offenders and about 37% of defendants who were in jail for second or third strike offenses were African American. It became evident that these laws were targeting people of color as well as showing issues with the implementation of these laws in the first two years” (Krikorian 1996). This study did have some flaws which included no data about the criminal histories of the inmates of various racial groups or what their crime in particular was. However, it was shown by the Department of Corrections in 1995 that, in total, 85% percent of all of the inmates incarcerated under the law committed nonviolent offenses in their second and third convictions (Krikorian 1996). This is important to look at in the long run because of the way that these laws were set up to deal with violent offenders, and not just in the sense of harming another person but severe felonies that use violence.
People charged with these disproportionate sentences do not seem to make a change to society as well as the statistics that go along with crime rates. Other studies confirm these findings that Three-Strikes Laws targets minority offenders, especially looking at the prosecution of these groups. In 1995, seventy percent of the state’s inmates prosecuted under the Three-Strikes laws were in Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Bernardino, and Sacramento counties. In California, these counties have the largest population of minorities according to US Census Bureau data in 1995, a study stated that
“82 of 1,586 prosecutors in those offices–or 5%–are African Americans while 82% are white and 8% are Latino. […] Moreover, the study says, in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Sacramento counties, more than 90% of the supervisory prosecutors are white, while 5% are Latino and 2% are black. Those counties, the study says, account for more than 50% of the “two-strike” and “three-strike” inmates in California.” (Krikorian 1996)
These studies reaffirm the idea that these court systems don’t look like the people that they are supposed to be making rational decisions about how their life will turn out. While these judges are supposed to be an impartial judge when it comes to deciding cases it shows that it’s hard to have an impartial judge on all of these offenders when there is no diversity within the system which continually degrades minorities.
The implementation of these laws was supposed to reduce recidivism rates in the state. Recidivism is the tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior (Merriam Webster) which, in the sense of the criminal justice system, is the tendency of a convicted criminal to repeat criminal offenses. In California between 1975 to 1995, it was shown that “65% of people who leave a California State Prison end up back inside in less than one year.” (Deane 2016) These offenders find themselves back in jail stems from a few issues. These reasons include not being able to readjust back into society, poor work history, and lack of rehabilitation. Furthermore, other mitigating factors lead offenders to recommit which include social interactions and other conflicting things in today’s society. One study done by sociologist Robert Parker who has researched the effects of Three-Strikes legislation concerning crime rates states that “declining crime rates in California and nationwide reflect declines in alcohol consumption, not tough-on-crime policies such as Three-Strikes laws […] and that crime in California has declined at rates similar to states with Three-Strikes policies and those without — including large states with no Three-Strikes laws such as Texas, New York, and Illinois — and found little difference.” (“Three-Strikes Laws Fail to Reduce Crime” 2012) Taking this study into account, it shows that other larger social factors weigh into the reason why people recommit offenses and not just placing the merit on the success of these laws.
Three-Strikes sentencing has been the subject of extensive debate on whether it is effective. Defendants are sentenced to long Looking prison terms under these laws have also sought to challenge their sentences. The cases that have been brought to court fighting against these laws are based on the principle of proportionality. This is expressed in the Eighth Amendment which states that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.” In the criminal justice system, crimes have certain punishments that come with them and with every added element to a crime gets additional time. One case that highlights the issues with these laws is the Lockyer v. Andrade case. In 1995, under the newly passed Three-Strikes Laws in California, a judge sentenced Andrade to 2 consecutive terms of 25 years to life which was reaffirmed by the California Court of appeals. Andrade was found guilty of 2 counts of petty theft with a prior conviction of stealing videotapes on record. The question that was asked by Andrade in his writ to the Supreme Court did the Federal Court of Appeals in holding the 2 consecutive terms for a third strike violate proportionality.
The Supreme Court in 2003 held that in the Andrade Case, it was an unreasonable application of the Three Strikes Law and the sentencing as a whole. However, since the law established that the courts had the right to deny Andrade’s request, the decision was still sound and did not violate gross disproportionality. This has led to an impact on the legal community. These laws pushed the boundary of what deemed these laws to be constitutional versus unconstitutional. From this case, it is shown that there are many that “Defendants have regularly challenged the constitutionality of the section and whether their felony convictions constitute convictions for qualified offenses. The question of when a felony should be considered an unenumerated serious violent felony has proven perplexing, but recent Supreme Court construction of the term in another context may be illuminating.” (Three Strikes’ Sentencing Laws 2019. In this case, while burglary is seen as a non-violent offence, there is a rejection of this idea because courts have established that a person who commits a burglary enters a home with the intent to commit a felony or a theft which has a high risk in harm towards individuals (Ardaiz 2000). Even though these defendants are fighting for their cases around the country and especially in California, statistically there has not been much change to their sentences.
However, revisions have been made to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 in 2012, called Proposition 36. This proposition provided two primary provisions for California. The first provision that was made to the bill stated that a life sentence is imposed only when a new felony conviction is serious or violent. The definition highlighting serious is an important factor because copious amounts of people who have been charged with three strikes have been charged with minor to even nonviolent offenses. The second provision in Proposition 36 laid out resentencing options for offenders who have been given life sentences when their third strike conviction was for a nonviolent offense (“California “Three Strikes” Law Defined & Explained” 2019). This change in the Three-Strikes legislation was an important step forward to the issues that these offenders were facing. It created a new way for both offenders as well as judges prosecuting these cases. These changes were brought on by the public due to the increasing issues with targeting minorities as well as the issue of disproportionate sentences.
While Proposition 36 was seen as a change from the harshness of the system, it did not mean it helped all of the unjustly imprisoned offenders. It is shown that “59% of those serving a second-strike sentence was incarcerated for a non-serious offense. 46% of third strikers can say the same. This accounts for more than 24,000 prisoners in just one state.” (Lombardo 2015) While this proposition did have some benefits, the reality of the implementation of this proposition leads to more prisoners who have not committed “serious” felonies who have had extended sentences based on these laws and not being able to get out of this system due to the issue of being a repeat offender. Furthermore, while it was a way to help judges to get away from the idea of standardized sentencing, it still doesn’t account for the extreme circumstances with the Three-Strikes legislation.
Although Three-Strikes laws and legislation have been modified over time, the elimination of this practice for nonviolent offenders would lead to these laws being less controversial. The idea behind Three-Strikes laws completely undermines rehabilitation for offenders while not reducing crime in the states where they are being implemented. These laws make an offender, who is being prosecuted under these laws, seen as being too far gone to have any redemption. These laws on top of existing mandatory minimum sentencing laws, it goes beyond what will change how people will act and truly impact society. The idea that giving out harsher sentencing to deter crime to target habitual offenders who have committed a “serious” violent felony as well as help eliminate recidivism rates seems reasonable. However, in the actual implementation of these laws, it is observed that “the rate of incarceration has increased leading to the rise of prison populations. In 2005, it was shown that more than a third (or 37%) of prisoners reoffend within the first six months of release and more than half of this number being arrested in the first year.” (Agenyi 2017) This statistic which comes just about 10 years later shows that there is still a large problem with these offenses. Also, there are still people incarcerated by this legislation which they have not committed these serious felonies across the country and with a large population of these people being in California has exposed that Three-Strikes Laws need to be eradicated and focus on new ways to help decrease crime and the issue of disproportionate sentences which could be through rehabilitation or just enhance the existing laws that have been in play.
Bibliography
Agenyi, Jeremiah. “Recidivism in the United States – An Overview.” Atlas Corps, 31 May 2017, atlascorps.org/recidivism-united-states-overview/.
Ardaiz, James A. “California’s Three Strikes Law: History, Expectations, Consequences.” McGeorge Law Review, vol. 32, no. 1, 2000, p. 1-36. HeinOnline, https://heinonline-org.ccny-proxy1.libr.ccny.cuny.edu/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/mcglr32&i=11.
“California’s Three Strikes Sentencing Law.” California’s Three Strikes Sentencing Law – criminal_justice, May 2017, www.courts.ca.gov/20142.htm.
Deane, Nicole. “Changing California’s 65% Recidivism Rate Is 100% Possible.” Medium, A Medium Corporation , 17 Mar. 2016, medium.com/@PlantingJustice/changing-california-s-65-recidivism-rate-is-100-possible-d4ac713a2da7.
Krikorian, Greg. “More Blacks Imprisoned Under ‘3 Strikes,’ Study Says.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 5 Mar. 1996, www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1996-03-05-mn-43270-story.html.
Lombardo, Crystal. “Pros and Cons of Three Strikes Law.” Vision Launch Media, 22 Sept. 2015, visionlaunch.com/pros-and-cons-of-three-strikes-law/.
M., Dee. California “Three Strikes” Law Defined & Explained, Dec. 2019, www.shouselaw.com/three-strikes.html#1.
“Polly Klaas Left Enduring Legacy.” Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 12 Sept. 2014, www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2218622-181/polly-klaas-left-enduring-legacy.
“Recidivism.” Merriam-Webster, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/recidivism.
staff, Science X. “Three-Strikes Law Fails to Reduce Crime.” Phys.org, Phys.org, 28 Feb. 2012, phys.org/news/2012-02-three-strikes-law-crime.html.
“‘Three Strikes’ Sentencing Laws.” Findlaw, 29 Jan. 2019, criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/three-strikes-sentencing-laws.html.
