Three Strikes Laws: Controversy, Impact, and Public Opinion

Introduction

From the beginning, the three strikes law in California was shaped by tragic personal stories. Take, for example, the story of Kimber Reynolds, who on a summer evening in 1992 went out for coffee and cake with a friend at a local restaurant in Fresno. As the two friends left the restaurant, two men on stolen motorcycles drove up to the curb. One of them grabbed Kimber's purse. When she resisted, the assailant pressed the barrel of a gun to her ear and pulled the trigger, killing her. There is also the story of Polly Klaas, who was kidnapped from her bedroom, raped, and strangled by a man named Richard Allen Davis. Davis eventually confessed and led police to the shallow grave where he had buried Polly, discovered on December 4, 1993. His criminal record included robbery, burglary, assault, rape, and kidnapping stretching over 26 years ("Polly," 1995).

When confronted with stories like these, a tough law such as three strikes seems very reasonable and practical. The original intent of the law was to keep violent criminals in prison and off California streets. However, many of the individuals being sentenced under the three strikes law are non-violent repeat offenders, and this fact has generated significant controversy among California residents and lawmakers ("Are Three-Strikes Laws Fair and Effective," 2004).

Background and Legislative History

In 1994, California voters approved a ballot initiative known as "Three Strikes and You're Out." The three strikes law means that a third offense—even a misdemeanor—can send a person to prison for a 25-years-to-life sentence. When criminals have two strikes against them, it is quite possible that they could spend the rest of their life in prison if convicted of a third offense, even one as minor as petty theft. Additionally, a person's first and second strikes may originally be misdemeanors, but prosecutors can "wobble up" those misdemeanors to felonies at their discretion ("Fight against flawed 3-strikes law must continue," 2004). Of the 26 states that currently have a three strikes law, California's is the toughest and harshest. Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, estimated in 1999 that more than 90 percent of the three strikes sentences handed down nationally were in California ("California voters to get a swing at three strikes," 2004).

By 2003, the majority of those sentenced under the three strikes law to 25-years-to-life were serving time for non-violent crimes. The Department of Corrections reported that 58 percent of third-strike cases involved property, drug, or other non-violent offenses ("They Changed Their Minds on Three Strikes," 2004). A notable example is the case of Leandro Andrade. In 1995, Andrade was charged with stealing $153 worth of videotapes from two Kmart stores and was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole for 50 years. Andrade was a heroin user who had been convicted in the 1980s of various non-violent crimes. Because of these prior convictions, he was sentenced under the three strikes law ("Three Strikes and You're In," 2004).

Problem Statement

The controversy over the three strikes law continues not only in California but nationwide. On one side are those who support such legislation because they believe it successfully reduces crime. On the other are those who recognize its inconsistencies and flaws and wish to rewrite or completely eliminate the law as it currently stands. This study is concerned with how individuals decide whether or not to support this legislation. Research clearly shows that people's choices can be shaped by a wide range of factors: empirical studies, authority figures, emotional appeal, peer pressure, personal belief systems, and societal values, among others. The purpose of this paper is to define some of the major factors that influence perceptions of the effectiveness of three strikes laws.

Professional Significance of the Study

Many people who were strong proponents of passing the three strikes law in 1994 through Proposition 184 have since changed their minds. Many feel that the three strikes law was never intended to be used to sentence people like Andrade. A number of the law's opponents argue that crimes typically prosecuted as misdemeanors should not be allowed to result in a life sentence. They also contend that violent crime has not been reduced because of the law; rather, it has created new problems, such as prison overcrowding and the high costs associated with housing these inmates ("They Changed Their Minds on Three Strikes," 2004).

Supporters of the three strikes law argue that it sends a message to career criminals and limits the discretion of judges who tend toward lenient sentencing. They also contend that the number of offenders imprisoned and the projected costs of housing them have been lower than originally anticipated.

In 2004, opponents of the three strikes law succeeded in placing Proposition 66 on the November ballot. Proposition 66 would have changed the law to require that a third strike also be a serious or violent felony, would have penalized sex offenders more harshly, and would have eliminated certain crimes from qualifying under the current three strikes law. Additionally, people already sentenced under three strikes would have received new sentencing hearings or could potentially have been retried ("Three Strikes Measure Might Free Many More Prisoners," 2004). The proposition was not intended to abolish three strikes but to change how the law is applied. Proposition 66 failed to pass, with 53 percent voting against it and 47 percent in favor.

Many years after the law's passage, the legislation continues as originally designed, despite ongoing controversy over its effectiveness. The law has survived several challenges at the Supreme Court and been deemed constitutional. The 2004 vote demonstrated that California residents' attitudes toward the law's effectiveness and fairness are shifting. This research aims to: (1) identify current beliefs regarding the Three Strikes Law and (2) determine what specific factors shape individuals' perceptions of the law's effectiveness.