Running head: THREE STRIKES LEGISLATION
Three Strikes Legislation
Mariah Avila
Lindenwood university
5/21/2018
1
THREE STRIKES LEGISLATION
2
Introduction
Three strikes laws are decree implemented and enacted by both the state and federal
government administrators. Perpetrators in states which use three strikes legislation stipulate
that a habitual offender found guilty of committing a serious offense and has been convicted
before must be given a 25 year to a life sentence (Chen, 2014). Three strikes legislation also
known as the habitual offender laws have been in existence since March 7, 1994, when they were
first implemented in the U.S. the United States Justice Department makes use of the three strikes
laws as an anti-violence strategy measure. As per the provisions of the three strikes law, it
mandates that a person found guilty of committing a serious violent felony and has been
convicted of two other crimes must be given life imprisonment. Twenty-eight states in the U.S
make use of the provisions of the three strikes legislation. A persistent offender is the name
referred to a person convicted under the three strikes law in some of the American states. Three
strikes law is quite diverse and has been a subject of considerable controversy among the
American people.
Research on Three Strikes Legislation
Three strikes legislation is used in most states in the U.S to give judgment on federal
offenses since 1993 in nearly twenty-five states. However, most states have not yet sentenced
people under the three strikes legislation due to the existence of the relatively narrow law. In
some states in America, the three strikes legislation can be triggered if the more or even fewer
three strikes legislation (Chen, 2014). Serious and violent felonies which are included in the
three strikes law comprises; manslaughter, kidnapping, sex offenses, murder, robbery and many
other offenses which are punishable by a ten or more year sentence. Certain felonies like
unarmed robbery offenses and arson are excluded by the statue as severe violent felonies because
THREE STRIKES LEGISLATION
3
they are not life-threatening offenses. The defendant in such a case, however, bears the burden of
proving to the court that the intentions were not meant to cause any physical harm or deaths to
the victims. If the defendant fails to confirm this, then the crime becomes a strike.
The first state to enact the three strikes legislation was Washington D.C in 1993. Since
then more states, the federal government included has gone ahead to pass three strikes laws in
their jurisdictions. The critical aim that led to the enactment of the three strikes legislation is the
urge by the federal and state governments to reduce incidences of recidivism. Recidivism is the
commission of offenses repeatedly, and therefore a repeat offender is a person who commits
crimes repeatedly, one after the other. Three strikes legislation in California’s law has been the
most far-reaching ones, and the frequently used laws more than in other states despite being
amended in 2012 (Jones, 2012). Various states have certain distinctions regarding how the
‘strikes’ are to be defined and the required number of strikes in a prosecution case. For instance,
a state like South Carolina provides that two strikes are enough for most serious offenses.
Despite the use of three strikes laws in many states, there have been many debates on
how effective the laws are. For defendants who have received a longer sentence, they are among
the people who argue that the provisions in the three strikes laws are unconstitutional and
ineffective. For instance in California, a man was found guilty by the court for stealing
videotapes worth $150 from two department stores. It happened that the defendant had two other
convictions and therefore the presiding judge slammed on the defendant a 50-year jail according
to the stipulations of the three strikes laws in California. The defendant appealed the sentence in
the U.S Supreme Court in Lockyer v. Andrade case, but the Supreme Court upheld the ruling
(Chen, 2014). The decision upheld the constitutionality of the law, and therefore the Supreme
Court didn’t find any fault in the previous judgment in the Californian court. The defendant
THREE STRIKES LEGISLATION
4
would have received a lesser sentence if there was no history of prior conviction. Since the
defendant had been previously convicted and stole the videotapes, then that was termed a severe
violent crime under the three strikes law.
In as much as the majority of the states in the U.S implemented the use of the three
strikes law, the application of these laws varies considerably in each state. However, the law is
clear, and it advocates for life imprisonment for at least a period of twenty-five years for the third
strike in every country. In the state of Maryland, if a person gets a fourth strike for any violent
crime, then the person is automatically eligible for life imprisonment without parole or probation
(Jones, 2012). One or more of the three felony convictions is required in almost every state to
generate a violent crime so as the mandatory sentence to apply to the receipt of the third strike.
Some states have more or fewer that would otherwise be termed as violent crimes. In California,
there are more added violent and severe offenses than any other state in America.
The effects of the implementation of the three strikes legislation have been eminent. For
instance, in California, there has been a reduction in crime rates after the enactment of the three
strikes legislation. Washington and California have variant forms of mandatory sentencing, and
this has seen a decline in the crime trends. The U.S Congress and the state governments enacted
the three strikes legislation in a bid to deter the occurrence of crimes and keep the members of
the public safe. Any repeat offender with three strikes the in California is eligible for a sentence
of up to 25 years to life imprisonment. Three strikes laws are more punitive and more into use in
California than in any other American state like Washington. Upon the receipt of two strikes, a
defendant is given a double sentence, and three strikes earn a person 25 years to life
imprisonment with no parole whatsoever. Recidivism rates have in both Washington and
California states reduced drastically in the recent years as compared to the past years (Lee &
THREE STRIKES LEGISLATION
5
McCrary, 2017). Three strikes legislation has both incapacitation and deterrence effects in the
states where they are applied. Research has shown that three strikes policy is frequently used in
California than anywhere else.
The most affected people are the African American people living in California (Hetey &
Eberhardt, 2014). In the California prison, 44% of the third-strikers are African American male
prisoners. There is an apparent disparity in the racial differences between the black and the white
people in America regarding the third strike offenses committed. More than any other ethnic
groups, the African American is more likely to be convicted of three strikes sentences. The
effects of three strikes regulations concerning the reduced crime rates have been received both
negatively and positively among the U.S population. Some critique the efficacy of the three
strikes laws while others are in total agreement with the provisions of the third strikes sentences.
Implementation of the third strikes policy is expensive, and that is why some states find it hard to
change the legislation regarding third strike sentencing. Third strike policy has been associated
with high social and monetary costs.
Various studies regarding third strike legislation in California, Washington and other
states in the U.S have been ongoing since the mid-1990’s. Among the earliest studies was
conducted by RAND long before the inception of the third strike policy. Reports from the RAND
research established that California’s system has the potential to reduce crime rates up to 25%
Hetey & Eberhardt, 2014). However, the findings of the study observed that the cost and the
benefits of California’s broad policy would entirely depend on the policy’s full implementation.
Most people living in California welcomed the changes associated with the third strike laws upon
their, but the critiques of the third strike policy argue that it has done little to reduce the impacts
of crime. Before three strikes, people in the state of California would often commit as many
THREE STRIKES LEGISLATION
6
criminal activities as they pleased because the consequences were less harsh. With the
implementation of the third strike legislation, organized crime reduced and so did crime rates.
Recidivism rates have also been decreasing since offenders fear the penalties associated with
third strike policy among repeat offenders.
Impacts of Three Strike Laws on the Criminal Justice and Practitioners
The prison structure and make up has been completely changed since the implementation
of the three strike legislation. Three strike policy has impacted the population of inmates in
prison in California and elsewhere in the world. The American courts across different states in
the U.S have sentenced over 80,000-second-strike offenders and 7,500 three strike offenders to
state prisons distributed across the U.S (Tonry, 2014). 43,000 inmates were serving a jail
sentence by 2014 under the three strikes legislation. This number almost accounts for 26% of the
inmates’ population in state prisons in the U.S. Since the implementation of the third strike law,
the population of striker inmates grew steadily from 1994 to 2004. However, as time went by the
number of striker inmates started declining. Many of the second striker inmates can complete
their sentences and others second striker inmates are on parole. The reduction of striker inmates
has been attributed to the fact that judges and attorneys exercise discretion in trying to dismiss
prior latter and three strikes cases. When judges use caution, third strike cases can be reduced to
up to 25-45%, and this means that inmates can get shorter sentences.
Currently, the most common three strike offenses that perpetrators are serving include
crimes like robbery with violence, burglary, possession of drugs and assaults. As of 2014, the
numbers strikers convicted of crimes against persons stood at 37% (Tonry, 2014). According to
the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 44% of inmates were convicted of
second and three strike cases which involved severe or violent crimes. The number of inmate
THREE STRIKES LEGISLATION
7
strikers with nonserious and nonviolent crimes is much higher than striker offenders with serious
and violent crimes. Inmate strikes have a more top history of severe and violent criminal offenses
than those inmates with less severe and nonviolent crimes serving time in prison. Since the
implementation of three strikes law, the length of prison sentences has increased to all striker
offenders. Before the application of the three strikes law, the average time served by the inmates
before their parole was 21 months (Lanier, 2018). Second strikers serve longer sentences than the
rest of the inmates and in 2004; they served an average of 43 months before their parole was due.
Striker inmates serving a third strike sentence spend a lengthened prison sentence than they
would have in the absence of the three strikes legislation. It is hard to estimate the cost the
prisons incur as a result of the increased number of the striker inmates, and this is because most
of the repeat offenders would have found their way back in prison. As of now, it is important to
note that, no striker inmate serving time under the three strikes law has yet been released, and the
earliest of parole might be eligible in 2019. It is determined that once striker inmates began their
parole eligibility, then the Board of Parole Hearing would have to incur more workload and
resources to cater for such cases.
The enactment of the three strikes law has had huge impacts on the aging population of
the inmates. The average age of striker inmates in prisons has increased from 32 to 36 (Chen,
2014). The aging prison population in state prisons has been attributed to two factors. Firstly, it
is believed that the enactment of the three strikes law has lengthened the prison sentence of many
striker inmates. A life term like the establishment of life imprisonment has facilitated the
growing numbers of elderly striker inmates. Secondly, the aging of the inmates is reflective of
the general population. Therefore as the aging population of inmates grow, then the general
population of the prisons increases and this lead to congestion in the prison facilities. It may
THREE STRIKES LEGISLATION
8
become more difficult to house aging striker inmates due to health care costs and illnesses
associated with old age. As the number of older striker inmates increases and state is faced with
the task of high incarceration costs. More funds which would have been used elsewhere would
be needed in the prison departments to keep the facilities and the inmates in check. The figure
below shows the growth of striker inmates in the U.S state prisons from 1994 to 2004 (Karch &
Cravens, 2014).
Aspects of the Three Strikes Legislation
One issue of the three strikes law is that three strikes policy gave longer sentences to
certain repeat offenders. The second aspect is that a person convicted of a violent crime and has a
prior criminal history must receive a sentence enhancement under the provisions of the law of
three strikes policy. A longer sentence is inevitable for a repeat offender in a state where the
three strikes laws are applicable (Lanier, 2018). For instance, if a person assaults a police officer
and commits robbery with violence and later on the person is arrested for a crime of intrusion of
privacy in a residential property. The person is more likely to receive a life sentence because of
the previous serious and violent crimes. The recent crime might be less serious and nonviolent,
but the considerations for the application of the three strikes sentence is based upon the last
THREE STRIKES LEGISLATION
9
committed offense. Before the implementation of the three strikes law, a person would have
served a minimum sentence of two years for the intrusion of privacy, but with the three strikes
legislation in place, a sentence enhancement is awarded.
Once a repeat offender is arrested, they are taken to the police custody and later on
arraigned in a court of law. With sufficient proof that the repeat offender committed three strikes,
then they are sentenced to 25 years or life imprisonment without illegibility for parole. During
the prosecution, however, the defendants and the defendant’s team of attorneys bear the burden
of proof to prove that the defendant actions didn’t cause any harm to the public. Once a sentence
has been passed, the person is escorted to a state prison where they are most likely to spend the
rest of their lives. An appeal can be filed in the Supreme Court to determine if the ruling was in
proper constitutionality with the law of the land (Karch & Cravens, 2014). A few of the three
strikes cases which have made their way to the Supreme Court ended up being dismissed
because of the lack of sufficient and corroborating evidence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the topic regarding the implementation of the three strikes laws remains a
contentious topic in the U.S among researchers and the criminal justice practitioners as well. The
application of the three strikes policy in California and Washington has seen to it that crime rates
reduce significantly. Repeat, and sex offenders are among the criminals who fear the
repercussions of the three strikes laws. Mandatory sentencing, however, has not been fear to
every repeat offender because there are those strikers incarcerated because of less severe and
nonviolent crimes. The prison population is expected to continue growing with the sentencing of
the second and third striker offenders in the U.S. With the efficacy of the three strikes legislation;
THREE STRIKES LEGISLATION
10
it does not seem likely that the laws would come to an end any time soon. But maybe a few
adjustments may be made to improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
THREE STRIKES LEGISLATION
11
References
Elsa
Chen
(2014).
Three
Strikes
Legislations.
Retrieved
from
https://scholarcommons.scu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1004&context=poli_sci
accessed on May 19, 2018
Hetey, R. C., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2014). Racial disparities in incarceration increase acceptance of
punitive policies. Psychological Science, 25(10), 1949-1954.
Joshua A. Jones (2012). Assessing the Impact of “Three Strikes” Laws on Crime Rates and
Prison
Populations
in
California
and
Washington.
Retrieved
from
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/696/3/assessing-the-impact-of-three-strikeslaws-on-crime-rates-and-prison-populations-in-california-and-washington accessed on
May 19, 2018.
Karch, A., & Cravens, M. (2014). Rapid diffusion and policy reform: The adoption and
modification of three strikes laws. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 14(4), 461-491.
Lanier, M. M. (2018). Essential criminology. Routledge.
Lee, D. S., & McCrary, J. (2017). The deterrence effect of prison: Dynamic theory and evidence.
In Regression Discontinuity Designs: Theory and Applications (pp. 73-146). Emerald
Publishing Limited.
Tonry, M. (2014). Legal and ethical issues in the prediction of recidivism. Federal Sentencing
Reporter, 26(3), 167-176.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment