Arguments for and against three strikes laws

Three Strikes You're Out Law

Three Strikes and You're Out laws have been enacted by more than half of the states in the union. After a criminal has been convicted of three felonies, he is put in prison for life. or, in other words, after three "strikes," they are "kicked out" of society. In some states, these statutes are called "habitual offender" laws that are used only in sex offender or repetitive DUI cases. And in other states, the offender may receive a long prison term, but not necessarily life.

Pros

Those who support the laws use the following arguments:

It keeps felons who have proven they are dangerous to society anyway, off the streets and in jail.

There is anti-three strike sentiment when discussing those random cases where it seems too harsh, but overall, three strikes keeps dangerous criminals in prison.

There is a deterrent factor in swift and certain judgment and punishment.

Because it is unfair for a few, we should eliminate it for the thousands of felons it keeps us safe from?

It's unfair? So I should allow you to blow your cigarette smoke in my face and harm me because it's not fair to the person who smokes but not around others?

Con

Those who oppose the three strikes laws use the following argument:

They are unfair because some of the crimes that cause life terms are not that serious.

Many of those sent away for life didn't commit violent crimes because the statue in their state includes non-violent crimes in its legislation.

They are not a deterrent and do not reduce crime.

They disproportionately impact Blacks and Hispanics.

It does not allow for judges to be flexible with sentencing.

They fill our prisons and cost taxpayers millions of dollars.

It violates the 8th Amendment to the Constitution -- cruel and unusual punishment.

Plea bargains are used by lawyers to bypass heavy case loads and clients are not aware they can be used against them in the future for three-strikes.

Fair and Effective?

Today, 7,500 inmates are serving life sentences under three-strikes. Almost 60% of those are for non-violent crimes. Only 102 of the 7,500 have been given life for second-degree murder or manslaughter -- in other words, violent crimes. The law is not locking away the hardened, violent criminal for which it was intended. There are only questionable statistics that show it has reduced crime.

In addition, there are deep racial tones to the inequality of sentencing. Blacks have been sentenced to a disproportionate number of life terms in comparison to whites by a large margin.

My response to this question is no, it is not fair and effective.

Similar Laws in other States?

Twenty-eight states have three-strike laws. Most are "similar" to California's. However there is one major difference. In California, the controversial three-strikes law allows the third strike to be any felony whether violent or not. And the sentence is a mandatory 25-to-life.

It is particularly harsh and has led to serious constitutional cases claiming cruel and unusual punishment. Criminals who committed burglaries years before (strikes one and two) and then stole video tapes or other small items in shoplifting crimes, have been sentenced to decades in prison due to the strict guidelines of the law. For these reasons, California attempted to amend the three-strikes law in 2004, but the voter referendum failed with 46% of the voters in favor of amending it.

2003 Supreme Court Decision

In May, 2003, in a split 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld California's three strikes you're out law as not being cruel and unusual punishment. Two separate cases involving thefts of minor items (video tapes and golf clubs) were reviewed to decide if applying the three strikes law due to previous felonies was indeed cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.