Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Three Strikes and You're Out

Three-strikes laws, a particularly punitive type of recidivist statute (a law that increases punishments for repeat offenders), exist in about half the states and are often enacted by the voters via the initiative process. As in baseball, on the third “strike” (usually a serious or violent felony), the offender is “out,” often meaning he or she is sentenced to an indeterminate life sentence and may in fact serve the rest of his or her life in prison.

These laws are therefore controversial. Supporters claim the laws have substantially lowered the crime rate and better protect society from the most dangerous of repeat offenders. Opponents dispute the causal link to the crime rate and lament the substantial resources devoted to increased incarceration. The effect of three-strikes laws has been most scrutinized in California, which has the most famous and draconian version of the law. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the law against a constitutional challenge, ruling that it does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. In some states, a liberal use of three-strikes laws contributes to prison overcrowding, since offenders serve longer sentences than previously for the same type of crime. This overcrowding may, by necessity, encourage development of community-based corrections for other offenders as an alternative to incarceration.

Origin of the Laws

While recidivist statutes have existed for many years, the first of the laws known as “three strikes and you're out” was passed by Washington State voters in 1993. California followed shortly thereafter, with both the legislature and the voters passing three-strikes provisions in 1994. This version of “tough-on-crime” legislation proved popular, with 24 states and the federal government enacting three-strikes laws between the years of 1993 and 1995. Supporters of the laws rely on two primary punishment justifications: specific deterrence (the logic being that perhaps a two-strikes offender will not commit another felony, knowing that life imprisonment could be the consequence) and incapacitation (the logic being that, if a felon does reoffend, he or she is now removed from society for a longer period of time). During this period, in the mid-1990s, crime rates were falling, but media coverage of certain violent crimes (especially those involving children or female victims) intensified, and the public felt increasingly at risk. Particularly vivid cases galvanized support for three-strikes laws. In California, a recent parolee with a violent past kidnapped 12-year-old Polly Klaas from her home in 1993, sexually assaulting and murdering her. The case received extensive media coverage and is cited as a catalyst for three-strikes laws, which were passed across the country, both by initiative process and by constituent pressure upon legislators.

While the three-strikes laws vary, they commonly provide that an offender is sentenced to life in prison after a third conviction for a violent crime. California's law differs significantly in that, while the prior strikes must be crimes described under the law as either “serious” or “violent,” the third crime need be only a felony. Further, with one strike, the sentence for a second felony is doubled. This broad statutory scheme constitutes the best-known and most controversial three-strikes law in the country. The largest number of offenders serving time under three-strikes laws are in California. For all of these reasons, much of the national debate about three-strikes laws has centered on California's law.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading