Reforms Needed for Three Strikes Law

The defined and existing problem is going to vary in scope and definition depending on who is doing the defining. However, there are some clear and obvious problems with the “three strikes” law. The policy itself was meant to address a problem. However, that policy has created a new set of problems. Indeed, there are situations where three-time violent felons are justifiably put away for twenty-five years to life. However, the major problem with the policy are the human and budgetary costs that are created by people being thrown in jail for life for minor offenses (“Ewing v. California”, 2017). There is also the concern that some people are being thrown in jail even though they will soon “age out” of criminal behavior. Indeed, men in their 60’s are not able to crawl through windows, run and jump fences like someone in their 20’s or 30’s (Besemer, Ahmad, Hinshaw & Farrington, 2017). In short, there is an obvious pattern and prevalence whereby people are being incarcerated for non-violent offenses. There is also a pattern of some prosecutors “stacking” charges so as to coerce a defendant into a plea bargain (Gocha, 2016).

It is not unreasonable for someone that presents a risk to the public to be incarcerated after the commit multiple offenses. There are even some non-violent offenses that could be classified in that manner, such as repeat DUI offenders. Indeed, that crime is not violent but the risk to the public is clear and people do not really “age out” of drinking, although therapy is always possible with cooperation (Moore, Harrison, Young & Ochshorn, 2008). However, there are plenty of other situations where the three strikes law is an abuse of power, is a waste of taxpayer dollars and might even be discriminatory towards minorities. Due to the clear weaknesses in the law and due to the common lack of built-in oversight and review, it is important to use the power of the state to refine and focus the law so that only the people that are truly a danger to the public are put away. Further, district attorneys should be subject to oversight in terms of who is ultimately subject to a third strike, whether charges could or should be “stacked” for a given situation and how much input the public should have when it comes to all of the above (Mills & Romano, 2013).

Since the situation and problem at hand is rather complex, the criteria for measuring success is going to be complex as well. This is true for several reasons. It is true that there is a finite amount of money from the public coffers that can be used for criminal justice. Further, there is a widespread feeling that a lot of the money spent on criminal justice matters is done to excess and is wasted. The criminals that “age out” or people going to jail for very non-violent felonies is another. However, there is the other consideration of public safety and the rights of the common person to not have their life, liberty and freedom disrupted due to the criminal actions of someone else. Indeed, some people hold property crime to be a minor thing and not something that should be punished harshly for. Others would retort that people that cannot or will not follow the law, even when it comes to such minor crimes, should be jailed for repeated and continued offenses. There is also the procedural matter of allowing discretion and the prosecutorial level while at the same time not allowing pervasive recidivists to walk or for minor offenders to end up serving prison time until they die.

The point is that since there are multiple dimensions to the problem, there are also multiple dimensions to measuring success. When it comes to fiscal and budgetary concerns, the primary measure would be lower spending on criminal justice expenditures, or at least less per capita. However, this has to be done carefully. The “easy” way to save money would be to just unlock the jails and let everyone ago. That would be much cheaper, but it ignores other considerations. As such, spending can and should be done on offenders that are truly violent and that are unfit to be in society. Moderate crimes and repeat offenders can be jailed for longer intervals if they continue with their non-compliance. Non-violent offenders such as simple thieves and drug users can be restricted in terms of where they go and what they do. This can be done as a much cheaper alternative to prison. It will take people to monitor and regulate those people. Even so, would surely be much cheaper than having them in jail.
Another item that has to be tracked in terms of success and failure would be the tactics and practices used by prosecutors. There needs to be both a consistency and logic to what is done. There also needs to be oversight. The author of this policy proposes that there should be a three-person oversight board that will lay forth the proper handlings of all major types and examples of felony cases. If there is a bit of an outlier, the prosecutors can seek guidance and advice. There is nothing wrong, after all, with making sure that the rules and best practices are followed. There needs to be consistency, fairness, a focus on lowering recidivism, a focus on keeping people out of prison unless the crime or public safety issues demand it, a focus on keep costs down, a focus on treating people of all races and ethnicities the same way under the law and so on.

There is going to blowback no matter what is done with this policy or anything surrounding it. The “law and order” types will demand the warehousing of criminals, including non-violent ones. The anti-prison advocates will demand the mass release of people that they deem to be incarcerated unfairly. However, any transition to a new guiding policy and coalition needs to be done in an orderly fashion. So long as the plan is presented completely and under the auspices of protecting the public while at the same time keeping costs in check, the policy should be received at least somewhat positively by all but most extreme and partisan forces.

There are going to be some obvious tradeoffs to this policy. For example, a lot of the people that are grandfathered into this new policy are going to blow their chance at redemption. Even if there are costs involved, keeping people locked up is often the best solution. Further, there are people that are actively going to exploit and take advantage of the second chances and mercy that they are being extended. They will actively try to game the system. This is just another reason why keeping things as objective and systematic as possible is important. However, any such system must look at all of the facts involved. Any resolution should balance the victim, the criminal and the public good.

It is clear from the above that the best solution to is to shift the situations to which the “three strikes” rule is applied. It is also clear that there should be a general shift away from prison and towards monitoring and non-prison regulation of activities. If done correctly, the command and control over charged or convicted criminal offenders can be retained while a the same time spending a lot less money than is currently the norm.

The solution and recommendation to be made from the ideas and suggestions above centers on helping people remove themselves from the bonds of drug use and recidivism. There should not be a minimization of criminal offenses and the problems they cause. At the same time, stealing from a house or boosting a car should not lead to a life of trips to prison, joblessness, drug use and so forth. Those that desire redemption should get it.

















References
Besemer, S., Ahmad, S. I., Hinshaw, S. P., & Farrington, D. P. (2017). A systematic review and
meta-analysis of the intergenerational transmission of criminal behavior. Aggression And
Violent Behavior, 37161-178. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2017.10.004
Boyd, R. (2014). Narratives of Sacrificial Expulsion in the Supreme Court's Affirmation of
California's "Three Strikes and You're Out" Law. Legal Communication & Rhetoric:
JALWD, 1183-108.
Donald, B. (2013). Stanford Law's Three Strikes Project works for fair implementation of new
statute. Stanford University. Retrieved 3 November 2017, from
https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/june/three-strikes-project-060613.html
Ewing v. California 538 U.S. 11 (2003). (2017). Justia Law. Retrieved 3 November 2017, from
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/538/11/
Gocha, A. J. (2016). The sanitization of violence: exposing the plea bargain regime as a tool for
mass injustice. Georgetown Journal of Law & Modern Critical Race Perspectives, (2).
307.
MILLS, D., & ROMANO, M. (2013). The Passage and Implementation of the Three Strikes
Reform Act of 2012 (Proposition 36). Federal Sentencing Reporter, 25(4), 265-270.
doi:10.1525/fsr.2013.25.4.265
Moore, K. A., Harrison, M., Young, M. S., & Ochshorn, E. (2008). A cognitive therapy
treatment program for repeat DUI offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36539-545.
doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.09.004


Rakoff, J. S. (2017). WHY PROSECUTORS RULE THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM—
AND WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT. Northwestern University Law
Review, 111(6), 1429-1436.
Rochin v. California 342 U.S. 165 (1952). (2017). Justia Law. Retrieved 3 November 2017, from
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/342/165/case.html
Sutton, J. R. (2013). Symbol and Substance: Effects of California's Three Strikes Law on Felony
Sentencing. Law & Society Review, 4737.