The primary ideology criminal justice policies and practices have been based on for decades is the idea of getting tough on crime. One of the most complex issues facing the criminal justice system today is that of career criminals and how to keep them from committing crime. The problem is that this type of offender makes committing crime more than just a hobby – it becomes their way of life (DeLisi, 2005, p. 21). To determine the true impact of this type of criminal, the Pareto principle, more commonly known as the 80/20 rule, has been applied to crime trends and studies found that approximately 80% of the crime is caused by 20% of the criminals (Boba, 2009, p. 33). If this is true, then it seems a logical conclusion that if we lock up that 20%, our crime rates should decline dramatically. The policy aimed at achieving this goal is Three Strikes, the ultimate get tough on crime policy.The Three Strikes law gained its publicity when it was passed by voters and legislators in 1994 in California. The law quickly gained popularity and many states have since adopted variations of the law, totaling 24 as of 1999 (States with Three Strikes Laws, 2010). A serious felony is considered a strike and as offenders commit more crimes, they do more time. The way the law works is that for a second strike offense, meaning the offender has one pervious serious or violent felony conviction, he or she is given a sentence twice the length of what the law requires. For a third offense however, an offender with two or more previous serious or violent felony convictions is given a term of 25 to life. The law also severely restricts an offender’s options by not permitting probation as an option for the new felony, limits the amount of time reduced for good behavior, and allows for consecutive sentencing for multiple offenses, thus lengthening the sentence even further. The rationale is that increasing sentences for repeat offenders restricts their capability to commit crimes and discourages the committal of new crimes. (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005).
These longer sentences pull criminals off the streets for longer periods of time which is necessary to win the constant battle against crime. The justification is that an offender who has been convicted of at least two felonies and continues to commit crime is unlikely to ever stop (Murphy, 2010). This goes back to the 80/20 rule mentioned earlier. The pitch is that if law enforcement focuses their resources on the small group of criminals that cause the largest percentage of crimes, crime rates will decrease dramatically. The Legislative Analyst’s Office (2005), reports however that overall conclusions regarding the policy are mixed. This being the case, it may not be quite as successful as originally hoped, but it is nevertheless getting serious and violent criminals off the streets. But is the law unfair to offenders and tax the criminal justice system more than it helps? It results in more cases to go to trial, which further bogs down the already overworked court system and it increases prison populations. It also causes criminals to be imprisoned for longer which creates an older prison population that costs more money as increased age is linked closely with increased health needs (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005). But perhaps the biggest contention is that it is inherently unfair and violates the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution. The Eighth Amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishment. This Amendment has rendered many policies unconstitutional throughout history and many people feel Three Strikes should be added to that list. Because a strike can stem from a nonserious or nonviolent felony, it allows an offender to potentially be incarcerated for 25 years to life based on petty theft with a prior. To put this in perspective, imagine a criminal with two prior serious felonies, one of which is a theft crime. He decides to steal a case of beer which is a petty theft. For someone without any priors, the case would be tried as a misdemeanor, but because this criminal has a theft related conviction, the case is tried as a felony. If he is convicted, the judge can send him away for 25 years to life. A scenario like this one makes it easy to see why the law has aroused such controversy. Critics find it extremely unfair as it enables a person guilty of theft to receive the same or a similar sentence as someone guilty of murder (Kitchen, 2009).
Despite the large population against the law when the case went to the United States Supreme Court, it was found to be constitutional. In Ewing v. California the court ruled that because the policy is justified by public safety interest it is in fact constitutional (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005). This hardly put critics’ mind to rest, but now that it has been ruled on, it is really up to the voters to repeal the law if they find necessary. There has not been an attempt to completely retract the law, attempt was made to revise the law. In November 2004 Proposition 66 was put on the ballot, but was rejected by voters. Although it failed to pass, 47% voted in favor of the Proposition which shows a significant number of California citizens would support revisions (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005).If the law had passed, one of the major revisions would have been changes regarding 25 years to life sentences for nonserious, nonviolent felonies. Seven years later the law still remains unchanged, however paradigms are starting to shift again as many are pushing for more rehabilitation efforts to be expanded; If this trend continues, perhaps we will soon see another attempt to revise the rigidity of the Three Strikes law. References:
Boba, Rachel. (2009). Crime Analysis with Crime Mapping. CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
DeLisi, Matt. (2005). Career Criminals in Society. CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Kitchen, R. Elizabeth C. (2009, September 02). The Pros and Cons of Three Strikes Law. Retrieved from: http://www.edubook.com/the-pros-and-cons-of-three-strikes-law/12561/
Legislative Analyst’s Office. (October 2005). A Primer: Three Strikes – The Impact After More Than a Decade. Retrieved from: http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm
Murphy, Jenny. (2000, June 12). Are Three-Strikes Laws Fair and Effective? Retrieved from: http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1290b-1.html
States with Three Strikes Laws. (2010, December 3). Retrieved from: http://www.threestrikes.org/3strikestates.html
No comments:
Post a Comment