Three Strikes: Is it effective?
Introduction
California’s draconian imprisonment law, the “Three Strikes” law, was the completion of a decade long movement of adopting “get tough on crime” laws. However, though these types of laws have resulted in a 300 percent increase in the prison population in the United States, many Americans felt more prone to violence than the decade before the enactment of the law (Vitello, 1997, p. 395).
Washington was the first state to enact these laws in 1993, so called because of the manner of their operation for incarcerating anyone convicted of three separate cases of violent offenses to serve a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Washington was followed by California in 1994, adopting a model of the “three strikes” law that metes out a sentence of 25 years to life for parties who are convicted for a third felony offense. However, compared to the law in Washington, California’s model of the law lists felonies that do not use violence, inclusive of the crimes of theft and burglary, and count them as “strikes”.
The California law has resulted in the incarceration of more than 50,000 offenders, outstripping any other jurisdiction, with at least one out of four of the offenders serving a minimum sentence of 25 years. This factor has drawn the attention of many legal scholars to establish the reason why the California “three strikes” model is the one that has generated the most controversy of all the similar laws in the United States. Advocates of the law attribute the low crime rates in the 1990s to the stringent sentencing policies brought about by the adoption of the policy (American Law and Legal Information, 2014, p. 1).
These “multiple offender” laws that mete out amplified sentences for the worst offenders, have a long association with the American criminal justice system. Several states, in the mid-1990s, enacted a form of multiple offender laws in response to the clamor of the public with instances of heinous crime. These statutes vary in a number of ways. One, some of these laws allows judges and prosecutors a wide discretionary window to invoke this amplified sentencing power. In addition, these statutes also differ with the amount of past felonies that will trigger this enhanced setting mechanism.
Third, the statutes differ on the applicable crime/s that can be counted and considered as a strike, and count towards the “three strikes” under the law. Some of the states lists down several felonies that can be considered for inclusion to the “three strikes”; also, there are issues that argue on the proper age limit that will allow the suspect to be sentenced under the “three strikes” law (Vitello, 1995, p. 400).
The law did not mandate that the third final violation be heinous or violent to qualify for the punishment of life without parole. In this context, California courts began to send offenders to prison for inordinately disproportionate sentences compared to their crimes. The law was challenged before the courts for at least 18 years, inclusive of unsuccessful appeal motions with the United States Supreme Court.
The effect of the selected sentencing policy on all involved stakeholders
Pundits of the law have assailed the law, stating that the law brings out the worst for the parties involved. The law in essence will mete out set, mandatory sentences for offenders found guilty under the law and a disparate application of the law for those that will be charged in courts. However, the greatest impact of the law is for the benefit of the prosecutors, who enjoy the greatest level of discretionary powers among the officers of the criminal justice system.
With their vast latitude of discretion, prosecutors can decide whether to list the complaint as “strikes” when these file the information against the offenders. Here the concerns about the equality of the law and the proportionate punishment canons have arisen in the midst of individuals being sentenced for life in prison for shoplifting or petty theft as the third and final offense used to recommend the meting out of the life sentences under the “three strikes” law (American Law and Legal Information, 2014, p. 1).
Lastly, the “three strikes” statutes allows inmates already serving life sentences even though these have been found guilty for non violent offenses to have their sentences reevaluated. With the new felonies, the new sentences of the inmates will still be multiplied twofold compared to the “traditional” sentence for the crime; however, with the majority of the offenders already having served a minimum of 19 years, resentencing will result in their eventual release from prison (Laird, 2013, p. 1).
The role of the courts in creating or enforcing the policy Under California law, judges did not have form of discretionary powers in the sentencing of the “incorrigible” offenders in the “three strikes” philosophy. The California Supreme Court, in 1996, declared that judges could exercise discretionary authority in cases where the “three strikes” law was involved. The ruling of the California High Court can ignore past convictions of the offender and evaluate whether the offender was eligible to be sentenced under the “three strikes” law (American Law and Legal Information, 2014, p. 1).
The affirmation of the “three strikes” law has resulted in thousands being sent to jail for crimes that can be compared in severity to major criminal offenses. The “three strikes” law mandates that the offender be meted consecutive sentencing, with the offender possibly serving sentences from 50 years to life in prison without parole (Walshe, 2012, p. 1).
However, what is regarded as the guiding case in examining and evaluating instances of the application of the “three strikes” law is Lockyer v Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 123 S. Ct. 1166, 155 L. Ed. 2d 144 [2003]. In the case facts, Andrade was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. Andrade will not be eligible to apply for parole only after 50 years or when the appellant will be more than 80 years old. The California Court system upheld the verdict on Andrade. However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the decision, saying that the sentence given was in violation of the Constitution as the sentence was inordinately disparate to the crime for which Andrade was sentenced.
Though the model as applied in California was unconstitutional, the Ninth did not categorically call the law as unconstitutional on the whole. The Supreme Court, in a divided decision, rejected the decision of the Ninth and affirmed the constitutional character of the three strikes law in Andrade. The High Court ruled that “Federal courts must give due deference” to the rulings given by state courts.
However, Justice David Souter wrote a dissenting opinion in the decision. In his dissent, Souter expressed concern in the use of the state of Andrade’s two petty theft convictions as the “second and third” strikes that triggered the “three strikes” statute against Andrade (American Law and Legal Information, 2014, p. 1).
Any recommendations to change the policy and an explanation of why you would make these changes
California voters enacted by ballot Proposition 36, or the “Three Strikes Reform Act”. The objective of the law was to deal with the most acerbic, and accidental, after effects of the sentencing policy. Proposition 36 jettisoned the ability of the officers of the criminal justice system to impose life sentences for non violent offenses and developed a mechanism for inmates serving life sentences for non violent, minor crimes that triggered the “three strikes-life imprisonment” feature of the law to go to the courts and petition for a reduced sentence.
For the defendant to secure a reduced sentence, the defendant must be able to prove to the court that he/she no longer proves to be an inordinate threat to public safety. In the initial eight months of the law, more than 1,000 inmates have had their sentences reduced and released from custody. The recidivism rate from the released inmates stands at less than 2 percent of the total, well below the averages in the whole United States. In addition, Proposition 36 will save the Californian taxpayers more than $1billion in costs over the next decade (Stanford Law School, 2014, p. 1).
With the adoption of the proposition, Californians officially closed a reprehensible era in the history of the state. The law was enacted to relax the provisions of the law. The law was “marketed” as a tool to punish murderers, rapists, and pedophiles and get these off the streets. Over the course of the implementation of the law, the law, rather than ensure the safety of the public, developed a brutal, “Kafkaesque” justice mechanism that overwhelmed any and all sense of proportion, handing out life sentences to members of the minority at break neck speed. Even a stolen pair of gloves, or a jack from a tow truck, can be used as a trigger to send the defendant to prison for a life sentence.
With the new law, the three strikes base of the law is still maintained, but the difference with the original law is the only trigger for the imposition of the life sentence factor is that the third strike is for the commission of a serious and violent crime, as the crime is defined the state law books. The law will also set into motion mechanisms for people to be resentenced as many of these individuals were sent to prison for minor crimes.
The resentencing mechanism of the new law is becoming a type of poll on California’s inhuman treatment of mentally unstable defendants who form a significant number of peoples sent to prison under the tenets of the “three strikes” law. The new law will allow the courts to reexamine the verdicts meted out on mentally ill defendants, who form a staggering 40 percent of inmates in prison for violation of the “three strikes” law. The mentally impaired, who committed low level criminal acts, were the ones who absorbed the full force of this ruthless law without having to fear any form of public outrage against this sector in society (Staples, 2012, p. 1).
Conclusion
It is important to balance the need of society and its policy and law makers to balance the need to protect the safety and welfare of the public and respecting the rights of the people, even those that violate the law. This call for balance has been one that is debated even at this present time. The “three strikes” law is a draconian law meant for draconian times, which cannot be said of the situation in the United States. Rather, the law is more of a political response to assuage the fears of the voters in the jurisdiction. Here, the law must be able to answer the needs of the society for safety and respect the rights of those who infringe on it, including imposing the right punishment for the crime done.
References
American Law and Legal Information (2014). “Three strikes laws-have three strikes laws worked to reduce recidivism?” Retrieved 26 May 2014 from < http://law.jrank.org/pages/10777/Three-Strikes-Laws.html>
Laird, L. (2013). California begins to release prisoners after reforming its three strikes law. ABA Journal December 2013
Stanford Law School (2014). “Three strikes basics”. Retrieved 26 May 2014 from <http://www.law.stanford.edu/organizations/programs-and-centers/stanford-three-strikes-project/three-strikes-basics>
Staples, B. (2012, November 24). California horror stories and the 3-strikes law. The New York Times Sunday Review
Vitello, M. (1997). “Three strikes: can we return to rationality?” The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 87 number 2 pp. 395-481
Walshe, Sadbhe (2012, January 25). “Why California’s three strikes law is out of order”. The Guardian
