Back to Californian Criminal Justice System main page
California, unlike the rest of the United States, tries much harder to convict criminals and put them in prison than to give the accused criminal a fair trial and penalize them appropriately and in proportion to their crime. And besides, society has other alternatives to decreasing crime than simply locking people in prison. There are preventative programs that start in the community, school, household, and work places as well as rehabilitation and restorative justice programs that can be used to decrease crime. Prison is the only solution that we hear about from political figures because of the belief that prisons alone effectively "crack down on crime" when, in reality, sending criminals to prison does nothing to eradicate the roots of the crime problem.
The Three-Strikes measure was written by Mike Reynolds following the murder of his teen daughter Kimber Reynolds. Reynolds authored the bill outside the legislative process and gathered 20,000 signatures to put it on the ballot. Initially, his bill was soundly defeated. Then in October of 1993, repeat offender Richard Allen Davis kidnapped and killed Polly Klaas. Mike Reynolds convinced Marc Klaas, Polly's father, to add his signature and his support to the bill. Within a few days, Reynolds gained 50,000 additional signatures as a result of the sympathy felt for the Klaas family. Even though Marc Klaas later took his name off the list of supporters, the Three-Strike initiative passed. (Families to Amend California's Three-Strikes) The problem was that a large number of voters who voted for three-strikes when it was on the state ballot believed that it applied only to criminals with records of violent activities. But the Three-Strike law expanded to include many individuals who had committed only minor offenses. Instead of receiving a just punishment for the crime committed, many are spending 25 years to life in prison for as minor an offense as possession of drugs or stealing a piece of pizza. (60 Minutes, 5/7/00)
Some politicians proclaim that incidences of crime will drop in a rate that directly reflects the increased strictness of the criminal justice system. "For instance, if you impose the death penalty on traffic violators, many people will probably slow down their driving (and probably decrease the number of deaths on our highways). The ethical question that must be raised, however, is whether such a penalty would be "just.""(Families to Amend California's 3-Strikes) Possibly the biggest problem with the Three-Strike law is that it commonly punishes people for what they "might" do. No individual should be punished for what he or she "might" do, but for what he or she has done. The irony of giving the death penalty to drivers convicted of speeding seems obvious: the speeder hasn't caused any harm to society, but merely represents the possibility of creating harm. There is a big difference between the two that must be acknowledged by the courts.
Critics say it's no wonder the law is responsible for one-third of the state's prison population when people like Steven Bell, who stole a bicycle, face life in jail. One critic, Alan Zimmering, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, says the problem with Prop. 184 (Three-Strikes) is that " it bites louder than it barks". (60 Minutes: 5/7/00) Most criminals who have committed two minor felonies do not understand that the three-strikes law applies to them, and do not realize how harsh a sentence they will receive upon the third conviction, regardless of the seriousness of their most recent crime.
Another problem with the law is that it is neither color-blind nor class-insensitive. As it is currently applied, Three-Strikes disproportionately affects minorities and the poor. In addition, particular counties decide to use the Three-Strikes law more than other counties. Is it just that the law is more likely to be applied to someone's case simply because of the color of their skin, the amount of money in their wallet, or because of the area in which they call home? This problem does not face California's criminal justice system alone. However, with our minimum twenty-five years to life sentence, it makes this inequality even harder to deal with.
Aside from its ethical flaws, the Three-Strikes law has huge economic consequences. The cost to the State of California to place a criminal behind bars is 25,000 dollars per criminal per year. If the minimum sentence for a three-strike criminal is twenty-five years, than every three-strike criminal costs the taxpayers half a million dollars. Few would argue that it's fine to lock away murderers and rapists for 25 to life, but is it really a good use of our money to spend half a million dollars on prison for non-violent burglars or similar petty criminals? California now spends approximately 5.7 billion dollars on its prisons and jails, (Families to Amend California's 3-Strikes) and, under the current Three-Strikes, that amount will only grow.
Either California needs to rid itself completely of the Three-Strike law, or we need to make some dramatic amendments to it. If we decide that we want to keep this legal format, we must give judges the discretion necessary to make the punishment fit the crime instead of forcing them to deliver a sentence of twenty-five years, no less. We must also think of a way in which we can rehabilitate and educate first and second strike criminals so that they are completely aware of our legal system and their position in it. The court should not be allowed to give more than one strike as the result of one incident. For example, if an offender is convicted of stealing a vehicle and then driving drunk, the offender should receive only one strike for the incident. We should also make it possible for criminals to take off a strike after proving they have been changed. For example, if a burglar has two strikes on his record, and he has proven to the court and to his community that he has not been tempted to steal again, he should be able to remove one of his two strikes. If he is caught drunk driving at a later date, he will not be sent to jail for twenty-five years to life for committing a crime where there is no previous history. However, if he is caught stealing again, then his past strike should be re-established.
The Three-Strikes law grew out of the increased fear and growing need
to ensure personal safety experienced by Californians over the past decade.
The media, in an effort to report "all the news," has overwhelmed
the public with stories of unprovoked crimes committed unexpectedly and
without cause against innocent citizens. Often. local news agencies have
found it much easier and cheaper to simply send reporters to crime scenes
than to spend time researching a story. Even though crime rates were decreasing
before the three-strikes law was put into use, the public has seen an increase
of crime shown on television and in the media (We, The Media). Unfortun-ately,
in response to the public cry for vengeance against murderers and predators,
our system has over-punished many minor criminals in the three-strike system.
As a consequence, many of the more serious criminals who were originally
placed behind bars for committing violent crimes are being let go to make
room in the prisons for the minor offenders who have accumulated more strikes.
Impact of "3 strikes" law on crime rates in California - Lisa Stolzenberg and Stewart J. D Alessio, "Three Strikes and You re Out": The Impact of California's New Mandatory Sentencing Law on Serious Crime Rates Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics - presents data related to the characteristics of the criminal justice system, the public's attitude toward crime, demographics of offenders, judicial processing of defendants, and more. |
The Thinker: Three Strikes Law - student reactions to the law.
Three Strikes Laws - THREE STRIKES LAWS DEFINITION: "The third conviction for a felony results in a mandatory and lengthy prison term." |
FACTS: Families to Amend California's Three-Strikes- group devoted to reform of California's Three Strike Law. ACLU: Criminal Justice - provides information about former abuses and reform in the criminal justice system, racial profiling, and a host of archived ACLU congressional recommendations and criminal justice resources. |
 This man was sentenced to twenty five years in prison
for attempted robbery, stealing a coke, a pair of driving gloves, and a
bicycle, while another man was sentenced to twenty five years for stealing
a piece of pizza. This is a picture from his interview on 60 Minutes. |
| Back to Californian Criminal Justice System main page |
| Back to Ethics Homepage |
