Three Strikes Laws

Three Strikes Laws

Introduction

Over the last forty years, the United States has imprisoned or incarcerated more people than any other developed democracy. According to Lauren-Brook (2015), the number of people in correctional facilities is five times more compared to those in the 1970s. The reason for this scenario is the exponential use of mandatory sentencing legislation. Other reasons for the high numbers include longer sentences given to the offender and the war on drugs. However, at the heart of this debate is the effectiveness of the three-strikes law and if they deter crime. Critics believe that the application of these laws at state and federal levels is unfair, and one of the main contributing factors to huge prison populations (ACLU, 2020). On the other side, proponents advance that these statutes have led to deterrence in the commission of crimes, especially for habitual offenders who get paroles but still violate their conditions. Consequently, this essay argues that these laws are counterproductive in the fight against crimes and responsible for the increase in the prison population.

Support for Mandatory Sentencing

The pursuit of mandatory sentencing regimes emerged because of increased public dissatisfaction in the way the law enforcement agents were handling crimes, especially grave crimes and felonies committed by repeat offenders. As a result, federal and state policymakers started enacting these rules to help prevent recidivism and ensure that criminal sentences serve their multiple purposes. These include deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, and retribution. Proponents of these laws, particularly political players who had a severe instance on crime, believe that these provisions were going to lead to a reduction in crime and offending. The supporters cited the need to get rid of streets of habitual offenders who deliberately violate their parole conditions and reoffend in their communities. Supported by initial studies that demonstrated a reduction in crimes across states and the country, many jurisdictions started implementing these provisions (ACLU, 2020). However, over forty years since these laws began operating, many argue with evidence that they have primarily been counterproductive and failed to serve the purpose intended. For instance, proponents believe that a decline in crime rate is as a result of the increased incarceration of repeat offenders who fail to live up to the parole conditions.

Why Three-Strikes Laws Are Counterproductive

A leading cause of huge incarceration is the mandatory sentences for offenders. These statutes have replaced the judges’ discretion in a variety of offenses. These provisions aim to place individuals who violate specific statutes in jails for a long time as a deterrent and incapacitation strategy. Crime control measures have been founded on the concept that restrictive laws in sentencing which deter individuals from the commission of the crime. However, with over 1 million people in prisons, American society is not safer than before. The implication is that political leaders and policymakers need to institute new strategies to fight the crime problem as opposed to using the same approaches at different times (Lauren-Brooke, 2015). These laws are old, and it would be appropriate that policymakers change their attitudes to crime control. States have repeat offender legislations and recidivism laws for several years. The statutes impose harsh terms that include life sentences for repeat offenders. Such sentencing violates the eighth amendment, which outlaws cruel and abnormal punishment. The implication is that in such situations, judicial officers have no discretion but to punish a repeat offender based on the statutes in their jurisdiction.

Convincing evidence shows that mandatory minimum sentences don’t lead to increased safety. For instance, Rhode Island replaced all three-strikes laws for drug offenders in 2009. After the repeal, the state’s prison population declined, and most importantly, its rate of violent crimes reduced as well. The implication is that longer sentences for many nonviolent offenders do not make society safer. Studies show that it generates the opposite effect (Lauren-Brooke, 2015). Research findings show that prisons can lead inmates to commit increased crimes after their release since many of these individuals find themselves living in areas with severe and violent offenders. Secondly, these offenders do not find work efficiently and have trouble reintegrating into society after their release.

Thirdly, three-strikes laws cannot deter violent crimes as supporters believe. In many instances, repeat offenders are released into communities where more violent criminals surround them, and because of their interactions, they are more susceptible to committing violent acts. In many cases, violent crimes are not planned (Lauren-Brooke, 2015). Offenders commit them in anger while in the heat of altercations. In other instances, they commit these crimes while under alcoholic influence. Imperatively, the thought of a life sentence will not deter offenders from acting impulsively with the hindsight to the likely effects of their decisions.

Further, the offenders may not consider the terms they may face before behaving as they do not expect to be apprehended. According to a report by the American Bar Association, out of an estimated 34 million serious criminal incidences that occur every year in the country, only three million lead to apprehension. Therefore, offenders, either first or repeat, never contemplate that they will be arrested for committing such serious offenses.

Another contentious issue about the applicability of these laws is that people who commit nonviolent felonies are subjects of their application. These laws aim to put away offenders who repeat their offenses and are at the most vulnerable of committing violent crimes. It is evident that many people who have committed nonviolent felonies, including misdemeanors like in California, are given mandatory life terms (Lauren-Brooke, 2015). Therefore, the problem is that the minimum sentencing applies to petty offenders who ordinarily do not require harsh conditions or long periods behind bars. Instead of these laws addressing the need to reduce rates of crime and decongest the correctional facilities, they do the opposite. They increase both rates of crimes as well as lead to overpopulation in the prisons. The U.S. is home to about 5% of the population in the world (ACLU, 2020). However, its facilities carry about a quarter of all prisoners across the globe. Through the implementation of stringent laws like the three strikes and supplementing them with options like truth-in-sentencing laws, prisons continue to record a surge in their population despite the plummeting of crime rates in the country. The implication is that the deterrence effect of the mandatory sentencing has not been achieved, and both state and federal correctional facilities shall never attain it.

Further, these kinds of legislation assume that rehabilitation does not work, especially for repeat habitual violent offenders. For instance, about 45% of inmates in federal correctional facilities are arrested within five years after their release. Besides, the Bureau of Justice shows that close to eighty percent of inmates get arrested within five years upon being released from prison (ACLU, 2020). Therefore, supporters believe that through the three-strikes statutes, the habitual offender is kept in jail to ensure that the rest of society is safer. However, this approach forgets that rehabilitation is also a purpose of incarceration and the criminal justice system. An effective justice system should balance the societal needs with individual liberties of a convicted offender and allow courts as well as other players in the system to exercise discretion aimed at making individuals better members of society.

Proponents need to understand that three-strikes laws increase the rate of violent crimes as criminals that face the prospect of mandatory life term are likely to commit more severe crimes to protect themselves. These include resisting a lawful arrest and detention, killing witnesses that may implicate them, and attempting to escape from prison (Lauren-Brooke, 2015). As such, law enforcement officers may fear to make arrests of such individuals because of the fear that they may be violent and even kill them. The cost of maintaining prisons and jails that house these offenders continues to escalate and make it difficult for state budgetary allocation as it is expensive to keep the inmates.

Conclusion

It is evident that the three-strikes laws are not producing the intended results and have led to increased numbers of prisoners. The implication is that state and federal institutions are dealing with increases costs of operations to maintain these facilities and the rising numbers. While proponents argue that the approach to crime is practical, critics and studies show a different scenario. Imperatively, state, and federal authorities should change their approach to crime control and reduce their reliance on mandatory sentencing as a practical approach to crime. Political leaders and policymakers should focus on legal frameworks that will reduce the use of compulsory sentencing to ensure that judicial players have increased discretion on many legal issues and when making decisions.

References

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) (2020). 10 Reasons to Oppose “3 Strikes, You’re Out”

Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/other/10-reasons-oppose-3-strikes-youre-out

Lauren-Brooke, E. (2015). Mandatory Minimum Sentences — Time to End Counterproductive

Policy. Retrieved from https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/mandatory-minimum-sentences-time-end-counterproductive-policy