Three-Strike Deterence Blog #5

     Today, the three-strikes law remains a controversial issue among legislators and law enforcement officials. Under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the three strikes statute follows that: A person must be convicted in federal court of a “serious felony” and have two or more prior convictions in federal or state courts. The three -strikes statute states, “At least one of these offenses must consist of a serious violent felony.” The other offense may be a serious drug felony. According to law, violent offenses include murder, robbery of a residence in which a deadly or dangerous weapon is used, rape and other sex offenses; serious offenses include the same offenses defined as violent offenses, but also include other crimes such as burglary of a residence and assault with intent to commit a robbery or rape and murder.

     The state of Washington was the first state to enact the “Three Strikes” law in 1993.  Since then, over half the states inclusive of the federal government have enacted the “Three-Strikes” law. The three strikes statute was enacted to reduce recidivism rates, and limit the ability of the offender to receive a punishment other than a prison sentence. However, many offenders who have received lengthy prison terms under this law have fought against it as unconstitutional.

In 2003, a defendant was found guilty of stealing $150 worth of video tapes from two department stores.  The defendant had two prior convictions and pursuant to the “Three Strikes”, statute sentenced the defendant to 50 years in prison.  The defendant challenged his conviction before the U.S. Supreme Court in Lockyer v. Andrade (2003), but the Court upheld the constitutionality of the law.

     In March 1999, the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to California's three-strikes law brought by a man sentenced to 25 years to life under the law for stealing a bottle of vitamins. The justices ruled that lower courts should rule on the controversial law before it is brought before the Supreme Court.  This punishment seems a little severe for stealing a bottle of vitamins.  Some argue that the Three-strikes law leads to prison overcrowding by locking up non-violent criminals for minor offenses. There is limited prison space and that space should be limited to violent offenders.  A man receiving another 25 years for stealing a bottle of vitamins hardly seems just.  Others argue Three-strikes laws are effective in crime reduction because they keep habitual criminals off the street and deter repeat offenders from committing crimes that would land them in jail for many years.

     Studies have shown that African-Americans are disproportionately affected by the Three-Strikes law policy.  The original intent of the law was to get violent offenders off the streets, but now offenders are receiving longer prison terms for minor offenses.  This law does not seem to be an effective deterrent of crime.  However, it is unlikely that criminals with two convictions will change their ways and walk the straight and narrow. What should be done with the criminals who have no desire or will to become contributing members of society?

Work Cited

Murphey, J., (2000).  Are three-strikes laws fair and effective? http://speakout.com/activism/issue_briefs/1290b-1.html

Three-Strikes Sentencing Laws.  http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_stages/stages-sentencing/three-strikes-sentencing-laws.html