The three strikes law provides a life imprisonment for any individual convicted of a felon. In this case, one has to be convicted for violent felony in a federal court with two prior convictions with at least one been a violent felony. In general the three strike law seeks to increase the punishment to repeat offenders of small crimes. The question arising from this law and its enactment is whether the three strikes law deters crime. To answer this, it is necessary to define what violent felony is.
A violent felony according to the above statute include sex offences, manslaughter, kidnapping, robbery, murder, and any other crime attracting at least ten years imprisonment with aspects of violence. From the described crimes, it encompasses all crimes that one may commit. Therefore, life imprisonment sentence is handed to any repeat offender with little regards to the crime committed. The controversy surrounding the consideration of repeat offences places one in a precarious situation of getting life imprisonment for very minor offences. There are more inmates serving long sentences for crimes that are not necessarily violent due to the three strike law than before. Some inmates have been handed life sentences for stealing a total of one dollar in loose change from a parked car. There are no immediate benefits of the three strikes law with long-term benefits proving elusive too (Elsa Chen, 2001).
The three strikes law seems to perpetrate racial segregation. According to statics from the California department of corrections, there are a disproportionate numbers of African Americans. In fact, over forty-five percent of all those serving life-long sentences under the three strikes law are African Americans. It is imperative that there is a possibility of racial favoritism in the judgment system as it concerns the three strikes law. In addition, the mentally ill members of the society are disproportionately affected by this law. There is a higher chance of a mentally ill person to be sentences for life without consideration of the medical condition of the person. The same trend applies with the disabled.
“Proposition 36” in California removed life sentences for non-violent and non-serious crimes. It also put in place a mechanism that the inmates may use to petition the court to reduce their sentences for all those convicted under the three strikes crimes. Such a move occurred due to the rampant life-sentencing of minor offenders. Soon after the enactment of proposition 36, within an eight-month person over one thousand inmates were released (“Stanford Three Strikes Project,” 2014).
The three strike approach is economically draining and ineffective. The people put under state custody for life for minor, non-violent crimes increases the burden the government since each inmate has a right of some basic amenities and up-keep. For example, the over-crowding in the prisons is worsened by the application of the three strikes law. The application of Proposition 36 in California’s reduced the tax payers an amount between 10 and 13 dollars (“Stanford Three Strikes Project,” 2014).
Further, Bettye Miller (2012) opines that there is no any scientific evidence in form of data or research that shows that the three strikes caused up to one hundred percent deterrence in crime. The application of the three strikes in California caused no any significant decline in crime rates. In fact, the rate of crime decline is the same as in those countries without the three strikes. It is, therefore, completely a non-influential law and, therefore, its continued use is detrimental to the society. The politicians and the police tend to convince the citizens that indeed the three strikes work while the opposite is true.
Work cited
Bettye Miller. “Evidence Does Not Support Three-strikes Law as Crime Deterrent. 2012.” Accessed on from http://ucrtoday.ucr.edu/9405 October 21, 2014
“Stanford Three Strikes Project,” 2014. Accessed from https://www.law.stanford.edu/organizations/programs-and-centers/stanford-three-strikes-project/three-strikes-basics on October 21, 2014.
Elsa Chen. “Impact of Three Strikes and Truth in Sentencing on the Volume and Composition of Correctional Populations. U.S. Department of Justice.” accessed from https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/187109.pdf on October 21, 2014.
