Three Strikes Law

According to President Bill Clinton, “We have a chance to pass the toughest, smartest crime bill in the history of the United States,” and this was the belief that most California residents felt at the time the “Three Strikes and you’re out Law,” took effect in 1994. The purpose of the Three Strikes Law is to punish repeat violent crime offenders upon receiving their third conviction of any felony. Initially, if a person receives a serious or violent felony conviction, this is considered a first strike, subsequently, then the second serious or violent felony criminal charge that is received would be a second strike and the individual will serve double the time originally assessed for the initial felony, finally upon the third felony conviction
At that time penalties in California were considered too low, the government appeared to be faltering in granting parole to the less violent/petty criminals, basically, handling all crime in the same fashion. Indeed, a high percentage of repeat offender cases were reduced to lesser charges on a consistent basis within the court system in California at this time. Also, victims of crime’s confidence in the effectiveness of the law in removing violent criminals from their communities were increased during the first five years of implementing the law, because of an increased rate of criminal convictions made, which were based on 2nd strikes totaling 36,043, and 3rd strike convictions totaling 4,468. Furthermore, as Gladwell demonstrates in chapter 8 of David and Goliath, “between 1994 through 1998, the homicide rate in California dropped by 41.4 percent, rape dropped by 10.9 percent, robbery dropped by 38.7 percent, assault dropped by 22.1 percent, burglary dropped by 29.9 percent, and auto theft dropped by 36.6 percent” (760). In fact, the initial reduction of crime resonated the idea in society’s mind that harsher sentences equal civil obedience, specifically in cases of
American’s felt a great sense of relief, believing that each person sentenced under three strikes was another reason they were safe. Just as, they believed, now, habitual offenders were not able to reduce or have the charges dismissed and being sentenced fairly. Also, society was confident that now repeat offenders would be punished based on the seriousness of their crimes. After all, the government did release several reports, including statistics verifying that the law was doing its job in reducing crime in every category. However, overall there can be no accountability or guarantee of equality or fairness in this law as it is up to individual use and interpretation by prosecutors depending on circumstances and judges must comply accordingly. Regardless of whether a person steals a slice of pizza on their third felony conviction or commits murder the same sentence being applied defeats the very principle of legitimacy and the u curve. If we are to punish a certain group of individuals’, it must be fair and consistent in its use and application within ethnic groups, age groups, and in general the atmosphere must be coherent with rehabilitation efforts. How can we expect young criminals who have