Three Strikes Law Criminal Justice

¶ … Three Strikes Law

Criminal Justice & Three Strikes Law

The purpose of this work is to research the Three Strikes Law in relation to a proposal for improvement or for refocus of the legislation on the Three Strikes Law. Included will be an Annotated Bibliography of the sources relied on in research of this issue.

Public outrage, prison crowding, juveniles thrown into prison with hardened violent criminals, indeed all of these are outcomes that have been witnessed as a results of the "Three Strikes Legislation." This legislation simply states that upon commission of the third offense of a serious crime the offender will be locked in prison for up to 25 years of their life. Although the first two of these offenses must be serious crimes the third can be for any felony committed.

Changes Proposed:

Proposals for a new ruling in this matter is one in which felonies will be reduced with 1/3 of those being taken from the list of violent crimes.

Findings of the Research:

According to this work written and published in 2004: " the ten-year anniversary of the signing of the AB 971 "Three Strikes and You're Out" law has arrived. The law in California was "much more punitive and far-reaching in a number of respects" than in other states throughout the nation. The requirement in California was a doubling of the sentence for any felony or a 25-year to life sentence for any felony if the offender had two prior felonies on their records. However since the law was passed the "tens of thousands" of individuals sentenced under the law has resulted in 42, 000 individuals which is one in four prisoners serving a doubled sentence or a sentence of 25 years to life under California's "Three Strikes You're Out" law.

According to the Justice Policy Institute report the "Three Strikes" law has contributed to large increases in the state's prison population, cost taxpayers billions in criminal justice spending, and disproportionately affected minorities and nonviolent offenders with little to show for it." (Phil News Dig, 2004) There has not been a significant drop in crimes, and as well violent crime rates have not decreased any more, and in fact less than other states. The report states that between 1994 and 2003 the number of inmates added resulted in approximately $8 billion for incarceration of these individuals and $4.7 billion represents the individuals who were non-violent offenders.

In 2003 the Supreme Court ruled, "California's 'three strikes' law does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment." (Dunphy, 2004) Leandro Andrade, arrested for the theft of five videotapes from Kmart which amounted to a worth of approximately $84.70, four more tapes were taken about two weeks later from a Kmart valued at $68.84 and was caught by guards at the store. For some reason he was charged at a later date. Generally these crimes would be classified as misdemeanors, however, California allows the punishment of a petty theft to be on the level of a felony if it is a third strike case and the offender has two prior felony convictions.

At issue through the appeals process were the questions of whether or not the sentences imposed on Andrade and Ewing were disproportionate to the crimes for which they were convicted, and whether or not federal courts should have the authority to override a state's lawfully enacted statute governing the sentencing of recidivists. Three stated facts about "Three Strikes" after two years are stated to be that impacts have varied substantially among the counties; counties have responded in a number of ways to the impacts of the "Three Strikes"; Impacts on state prisons are starting to be felt and are likely to be very substantial; Magnitude of the impact on crime is unclear.

The three strikes law in California is the only version of the law in any of the states where a third non-violent or non-serious offense is treated as a serious felony in the sentencing process. The new law called Proposition 66 will focus on the modification of the three strikes law to bring new meaning in that third offenses of non-serious crimes would not count as a third strike under the three strikes law. Stated in the journal article is that:

There's good reason to shave the Draconian edge off the three-strikes law. Locking up petty thieves and drug users (the overwhelming majority of them black and Latino males) for 25 years to life without the possibility of parole is a blatant violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment."

Summary and Conclusion

Changes are needed in order to address the critical problem of overcrowding in U.S. Prisons and as well the fact that there are so many non-violent offenders housed with hardened and violent criminal individuals is as well a problem in the present structure of the prison system. Only legislation of this law into a modified workable solution will address all the relevant issues brought on by the "Three Strikes" law.

Annotated Bibliography

Ehlers, Scott, et al. (2004) Still Striking Out Ten Years of California's Three Strikes Law 2004 September:

According to this work written and published in 2004: " the ten-year anniversary of the signing of the AB 971 "Three Strikes and You're Out" law has arrived.

California's "Three Strikes" Law (2004) Philanthropy News Digest 2004 Mar 9 Justice Policy Institute Online at http://www.justicepolicy.org/article.php?id=423:

According to the Justice Policy Institute report the "Three Strikes" law has contributed to large increases in the state's prison population, inmates added resulted in approximately $8 billion for incarceration of these individuals and $4.7 billion represents the individuals who were non-violent offenders.

Dunphy, Jack (2003) National Review Online "Three Strikes and You're Still Out" National Review Online at; [www.nationalreview.com/dunphy/dunphy0306 03.asp:

In 2003 the Supreme Court ruled, "California's 'three strikes' law does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment." (Dunphy, 2004) at issue through the appeals process were the questions of whether or not the sentences imposed on Andrade and Ewing were disproportionate to the crimes for which they were convicted, and whether or not federal courts should have the authority to override a state's lawfully enacted statute governing the sentencing of recidivists.

Greenwood, Peter W. et al. (1994) Three Strikes and You're Out: Estimated Benefits and Costs of California's New mandatory-sentencing Law" Rand!994:

Documented analysis of the "benefits and costs of California's new "three-strikes" law mandating lengthier sentences for repeat offenders" and accompanying alternate sentencing laws are presented.

The Impact of the "Three Strikes and You're Out" Law on California's Justice System (1996) California: Legislative Analysts Office - Handouts Online at: www.lao.ca.gov.handouts/pre_1999/ho022096_2_strikes_impact.html]:

Three stated facts about "Three Strikes" after two years are stated to be that impacts have varied substantially among the counties; counties have responded in a number of ways to the impacts of the "Three Strikes"; Impacts on state prisons are starting to be felt and are likely to be very substantial; Magnitude of the impact on crime is unclear.