The Three Strikes Laws refer to statutes enacted by governments in the United States, which compel the courts to impose stricter and harsher penalties on habitual offenders. These habitual offenders include persons who commit a third serious crime with a history of two charges and consequent two serious convictions of criminal offenses. The law considerably increases their prison sentences depending on the level of seriousness of the present and prior committed crimes. In Texas, the law mandates judges to accord such persons imprisonment that ranges between 25 years and life imprisonment. These serious crimes are specifically listed in laws of the states but generally include: murder, robbery with violence, burglary, kidnapping et al. Judges first applied this law in the case of Rummel v Estelle. The defendant had pled guilty to two other felony charges concerning property prior to the crime in question. The United States Supreme Court upheld a life sentence for the third felony under the three strikes law in Texas (Rummel v Estelle, 1980). This essay will seek to argue that this law is a proper strategy at enhancing public safety.
The three strikes law has both effects of general and specific deterrence. General deterrence happens when potential offenders witness the consequences brought about by the actions of other people, and make up their minds not to get involved in similar actions. These consequences instill fear in members of the society thus reducing the rates of potential crimes. The persistent offenders are also used as examples by parents when warning their children against disobedience of the law. Specific deterrence occurs when offenders decide not to commit more crimes lest they end up receiving a harsher sentence. These harsher sentences help to reduce the rate of crimes by instilling the fear of being imprisoned for longer periods for the third crimes (Schafer). Moreover, life behind bars is not an interesting episode for any convict. It is characterized by violence among inmates which in many cases turns out to be tragic, sodomy, poor sanitation, overcrowding et al.
Habitual offenders are completely locked out of the society after committing their third offense. The longer the sentence imposed, the more the time that the society is assured of peace. They are kept out of the general population and thus this population is protected from their continued offenses of murder, rape and other violent crimes. Moreover, this long period of time gives offenders the time to reflect and think about their lives. The harsh reality of the 25 years or more dawns on them and is characterized by remorse and pain. The fact that they won’t taste freedom again or be with their families and other loved ones is quite painful. It makes them swear and make promises to themselves not to disobey the law again so that they can never be away from their families another time. It is also characterized by great worry and anxiety by breadwinners about what their families back home are feeding on. Most of them thus ultimately complete their long sentences as reformed men and women, who return to the society without the slightest intent of causing harm to public again.
It is also a common phenomenon to all states that have this law to apply it to serious and violent crimes. What constitutes a serious crime is left to the discretion of the law-making organs. They, however, generally include murder, robbery with violence and assault with intent to murder or commit robbery, kidnapping et al. The society is thus protected from serious crimes which would deny them of fundamental rights like the right to life and that to own property.
While some studies have shown that the three strikes law has not reduced crime, (Males, 2011) the bulk of research has shown that the law has lessened the rate of crime (Schafer). In California, for instance, since its enactment of the three strikes law in 1994, the rate of crime reduced between 1994 and 1997 by 20.2 percent and with a 13.8 percent drop specifically for violent crimes (Jones, 2012). Though this law can’t be accorded sole credit for this particular drop and many other drops in other states, its impact cannot be ignored. The legislators should however include as many serious crimes as possible in the list of crimes that warrant the use of the three strikes law. Moreover, the law should also include juveniles as they are responsible for a large part of violent crimes in many states. The states should also pass policies that boost government revenue to cater for the increased costs of maintaining prisoners associated with the implementation of the three strikes law. These improvements will rebut the argument that this law doesn’t reduce the rate of crime. All in all, it is a good law that has been proved to reduce the rate of crime and enhance public safety by deterring the commission of further crimes by past offenders. It also deters potential offenders from engaging in crimes. It removes violent people from society by locking them up for very long periods, a time within which members of the society enjoy peace. It also protects the public from serious crimes that would deny them of fundamental rights like the right to life and the right to own property.
References
Rummel v Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (United States Supreme Court March 18, 1980).
Jones, J. A. (2012). Assessing the Impact of “Three Strikes” Laws on Crime Rates and Prison Populations in California and Washington.
Males, M. (2011). Striking Out: California’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out” Law Has Not Reduced Violent Crime: A 2011 Update. National Institute of Corrections (NIC).
Schafer, J. R. (n.d.). The Deterrent Effect of Three Strikes Law. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin.
