Week 4, Entry 2: Three Strikes-not just for baseball anymore...

Three Strikes Laws exist in more than half of all states and in the Federal Government and are really just another version of mandatory sentencing guidelines. Though the provisions of these laws vary from state to state, they share common goals-to reduce recidivism, serve as a deterrent to would be criminals, and to get career criminals off the streets. Who wouldn’t support those goals?

The reality is that many of these laws were poorly written and allow long sentences for non-violent crimes that normally would result in very short jail terms or probation. Who thinks that getting a life sentence (with eligibility for parole after 50 years) is a just sentence for stealing $153 worth of merchandise from a store? Chances are, an armed robber wouldn’t get that long of a sentence-unless he was subject to the provisions of this law. Unfortunately, disproportionate sentences such as this have happened many times, and have even resulted in some states revisiting their Three Strikes Laws.

Some may argue that these criminals are getting what they deserve because they’ve had a pattern of criminal activity in the past. It is even said that laws such as these prevent criminals from preventing more crimes in the future. It was even argued on the website http://www.threestrikes.org/ that in California, 10,000 Californians have been “spared from becoming murder victims” since the passage of California’s Three Strikes Laws in 1994. This statement obviously has no basis in fact, and cannot be proven.  How can the author prove that those incarcerated under the Three Strikes Laws would have murdered 10,000 Californians if not for this law? This is a great example however, of how some are using fear to gain the acceptance of the public in the erosion of our rights as citizens.

One may ask, what does this have to do with me? I’ve never been charged with a crime, much less convicted. Who cares about those habitual criminals? We all should. Besides the fact that it has not been proven that these laws deter crime or reduce recidivism, our system is based upon proportional punishment for offenses. We do not put people to death for crimes other than murder, as countries such as Saudi Arabia do. Neither should we sentence people to life in prison for shoplifting or other non-violent crimes.   While it is technically not double jeopardy,  it does seem to have a similar effect-we're punishing people for crimes for which they've already been punished as much as for the current crime itslef.   



Contrary to what many choose to believe, our criminal justice system exists to rehabilitatie, not just to punish. Granted, the current rate of recidivism in our prisons indicates that the current methods of rehabilitation are not working very well. However, to simply lock up repeat offenders and throw away the key is not the solution either. We as a nation cannot afford to sustain the current rate of incarceration, much less support further increases in the prison population that laws such as these may bring. Three Strikes is fine in baseball, but the criminal justice system is too complex for such a simplistic concept. The key to this is to reform the prison system and find new and effective means of rehabilitation. Effective rehabilitation and reduced recidivism rates will accomplish justice in a way that no draconian laws ever will and are in keeping with the ideals of a free and just society.