Sources used in this document:

The Three Strikes law came about following a number of specific crime incidents and legislative actions. A timeline of the evolution of these events has been developed by National Public Radio. The key elements of the effort began formally with Republican Governor Pete Wilson signing the originating legislation into law in March 1994. The law was recognized as being more severe than the approaches of other states, but basically a mandatory life sentence was required for persons convicted of three felonies (though in actuality the person could be paroled after 25 years). Apparently not yet satisfied, the public followed that move by passing a state electoral initiative that added more stringency to the law, hoping to make it difficult for judges to waiver in the sentences they provided. From that point forward, various legal challenge and sensational stories kept the issue alive (such as the case of a person getting life for stealing a slice of pizza) and approved the concept. By the year 2000, the public was coming to grips with the impact of its decision and passed Proposition 36, which allowed offenders with drug use problems to get treatment instead of just prison time. In 2006, after the efforts of several legislators that would require the third offense to be a serious or violent offense, Governor Schwarzenegger refused to change the law, leaving it predominately in place and controlling California's get-tough strategies until today. [1: Tanya Ballard Brown. "Timeline: The Evolution Of California's Three Strikes Law," National Public Radio. Accessed January 26, 2012 at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114250301. ]

By 2009, however, California was confronted with a reality that it would not be able to get around: It now has too many people in its prisons. A three-judge federal court review panel looked at California's system and ordered major reductions of prisoners, noting that the existing system was unable to maintain adequate health, mental health and related protections for the prisoners. California challenged the ruling but has now come face-to-face with the fact that the court's recommendations would have to stand. And now that state is being forced to undertake specific reforms that center on "shortening sentences, diverting nonviolent felons to county programs, giving inmates good behavior credits toward early release, and reforming parole." Tens of thousands of people are now being sent from state facilities to county facilities, which will likely force lesser offenders out of those jails even though there are few if any community correctional programs to send them to. As the panel put it: "The evidence is compelling that there is no relief other than a prisoner-release order that will remedy the unconstitutional prison conditions." [2: Solomon Moore, "Court orders California to cut prison population." February 9, 2009. The New York Times. Accessed on January 26, 2012 at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/us/10prison.html. ]

As recently as 2002, the ACLU was actively challenging the concept, posting on its website 10 reasons why Three Strikes was bad law (http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/10-reasons-oppose-3-strikes-youre-). Professionals in the field of criminal justice saw the experience differently, and in 2007, the editors of The Journal of the Institute for the Advancement of Criminal Justice offered an issue dedicated to why the law was working. As the editor of that publication put it, "The 'worst of the worst' are in prison where they belong, not in our neighborhoods committing more crimes and creating more victims. Three Strikes has slammed shut what was once a revolving door for career criminals." Perhaps, but the cost of doing this has been tremendous and the state may be swelling with opposition as the cost of stopping the worst offenders means putting to many other criminals back on to the streets. [3: David W. Paulson. IACJ From the Editor's Desk. Issue 1, Summer 2007. Accessed on January 26, 2012 at http://www.iacj.org/PDF/IACJJournalIssue1.pdf. ]