Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet
icon backReturn to Entries

Three Strikes Laws

In the past 15 years, the criminal justice system has undergone a movement to increase punishments for offenders. This increase reflects public demands for harsher sanctions for offenders and a shift in punitive philosophies as part of a movement to “get tough on crime.” As part of this social climate, various states began to pass habitual offender laws, with the best known being those defined as three strikes laws. With the passage of these laws, the media, politicians, the public, and social scientists have focused their attention on this issue. This entry examines the nature and variations of three strikes laws, the debate over these policies, and the laws' impact on crime, the criminal justice system, and the African American community.

Types of Three Strikes Legislation

Currently about half of the states and the federal government have some form of three strikes laws. These laws, which often receive the moniker of “three-strikes-and-you're-out laws,” vary across jurisdictions but also have some key similarities. With regard to similarities, these jurisdictions limit offenders' eligibility by the nature of the prior criminal offenses and that of the charge that they face for their current offense. Typically, eligible offenses are those involving violent felonies. The punishments result in lengthy periods of incarceration. Some jurisdictions allow the possibility of parole after serving a substantial period of incarceration, usually between 25 to 40 years. However, the jurisdictions with some of the most severe penalties require mandatory sentences of life without parole. In terms of differences, some states also have provisions for two or four strikes before an offender is “out.” Furthermore, a few versions include drug offenses, financial crimes, and minor property crimes.

Whereas Washington was the first state with a three strikes law, California is arguably the best-known state with this type of law. Its law took effect in 1994, and it contains both two and three strikes provisions that ensue in the face of felony convictions. According to these provisions, a variety of violent offenses serves as “strikeable” offenses. Other eligible crimes include property, weapons, and drug offenses. Offenders face the two strikes provision when an offender with a prior felony for an eligible offense earns a conviction for the commission of another felony. The result is a penalty enhancement in the length of incarceration. Offenders face the three strikes provision for a conviction on any felony offense in the face of having two prior felony convictions for eligible offenses. This provision makes California notable relative to most other states with strikes laws. Offenders who prompt this provision face a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life, with no parole eligibility for 25 years. As with other strikes laws, numerous debates occurred over the creation of this legislation and its likely impact on crime and the criminal justice system, but those in support of this type of legislation have largely prevailed. Nevertheless, debates continue to abound on this issue.

Debating Three Strikes Laws

In addressing the need for three strikes laws, their validity, and their effects, those on both sides of the debate staunchly hold to their views. Proponents of these policies stress the need to respond to the dangers posed by repeat offenders, particularly persistent violent offenders. They maintain that these offenders are incorrigible and that available punishments are insufficient to address the gravity of their actions. More specifically, they charge that existing laws fail to meet the punitive goals of incapacitation, deterrence, and just deserts. Incapacitation serves to prevent offenders from committing any crimes external to the prison because they do not interact with the public. Deterrence comes in two forms: general and specific. General deterrence focuses on reinforcing social norms by sending a message to the larger community that committing certain acts will result in stringent punishments. Specific deterrence focuses on preventing recidivism by offenders. A philosophy of just deserts stresses proportionately in sentencing. Supporters note that this type of legislation targets only the most violent habitual offenders. They assert that removing these offenders from society for a substantial period, or permanently, is just punishment. Advocates of three strikes laws also stress that these policies reflect public demands for more punitive sanctioning of offenders and that they serve to reduce crime rates because they remove dangerous criminals from society. Finally, they maintain that these policies are highly cost-effective for jurisdictions, which allows them to allocate greater resources to areas such as education and health care.

...

  • 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

Read next

More like this

Sage Recommends

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

close

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

close
close
close Signed In to profile You are signed in as:
close
Logged in Institution Institution