Mark Jecmen

Edge

6/4/03

3 Strikes

A look into the validity of the 3 strikes law

3 strikes

Three strikes and you’re out. As crime soared to unprecedented heights, California legislatures frantically searched for a solution. The answer came in the form of Assembly bill 971, more commonly known as the "Three Strikes" legislation. The three strikes law came into effect on March 7, 1994 at approximately 2:45 p.m(CITE). Its purpose, take three time offenders and sentence them to life in prison without parole. By removing the most dangerous criminals from the street, while at the same time deterring others from committing crimes, it will ultimately lower crime. The three strikes law works something like this, you commit a felony, usually a violent crime, and you have strike number one. When you commit another felony it is a second strike and the sentence you receive is automatically doubled. If you commit another crime, at any time throughout the rest of your life, violent or not, you have your third strike. By receiving the third strike you are given a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole if convicted. Now nine years after its enactment, the three strikes law is coming under major fire. Critics strongly condemn the law, arguing it violates constitutional liberties, affects only certain social groups, while little crime is prohibited. Simultaneously, law enforcement and legislatures praise its ability to decrease the crime rate. Now is the time to find out the truth on three strikes and assess its ability to fulfill its purpose. This research will hypothesize that the three strikes law is cleaning up crime. It seems nothing less than logical to expect crime rates to decrease when dangerous, multiple offending criminals appear to be off the streets.

Background

Supporters of the three strikes law argue its effectiveness profusely. California residents like Josh Rosenblum praise the laws performance and recognize its necessity. Affirming the need for such a law, Rosenblum points out the 1994 FBI quote that every American now faces " a realistic chance of murder victimization in view of the random nature that crime has assumed."(CITE) Frighteningly, Rosenblum also asserts, "One can no longer go out into the streets of out cities without the fear of being assaulted, raped, shot, kidnapped, or accosted by drug attics." With California’s rate of criminals committing multiple offenses at 60%, and 63% of inmates committing serious crimes within their first three years of release, citizens welcomed to such a law with open arms. (CITE bureau of justics) Citizens have numerous reasons to support such a law. For one, the criminal who abducted and murdered Polly Klas, one of the most heinous murders in California history was designated a sentence of only nine years in prison. When he was apprehended, authorities found out he had been a multiple offender and had been release just days before he abducted the young girl. (CITE)As disenchanting as that may be, inmates these days can expect to serve roughly half of the time they have been sentenced too. While in prison the inmates also enjoy numerous perks that make their experiences more that tolerable. With meals provided, cable television and weightlifting equipment prisoners hardly have to do "hard time."(CITE) Drug use is even a huge problem in American prison. In fact, it became drastic that a federal judge in Virginia refused to send a criminal to prison for multiple drug possessions, for fear it would be worse.(CITE) For some, going to prison may actually be an improvement from their outside lives. With the struggles of paying bills, making money, and providing for yourself as well as others, prison may be a welcome relief. Prior to the three strikes law California dealt rather easily on multiple offenders, allowing them to flow through prisons after committing crime after crime. With three strikes, criminals are now given a major deterrent not to commit multiple crimes. Supporters quickly refute many of the arguments presented by critics. First, critics argue that the enormous cost of putting more criminals in jail is enough in itself to retract the law. However, at $200,000 per inmate, the Office of Planning and Research estimates that three strikes will actually save $23 billion over the next 5 years.(CITE) Secondly, it is argued that three strikes is disproportionately skewed to effect minorities, however statistically no causal connection can be found. Legislatures knew that with enacting three strikes problems could arise. Recognizing this, legislatures gave prosecutors the ability to "strike down" previous strikes at their discretion. To do this, the prosecutor can look back and deduce if one of the strikes could have been classified as a misdemeanor or not a violent crime. These crimes are more commonly know as "Wobblers," as they can be charged at the discretion of the prosecutor to ensure that sentences are just.(CITE) With all that advocates argue, there will always be others who feel differently. These critics present very persuasive arguments as well, and it is necessary to examine them in order to correctly design research.

One of the harshest critics of the three strikes law is the American Civil Liberties Union, well known to the public by the acronym ACLU. At the heart of their argument is the disbelief that laws can deter criminals from committing violent crimes, citing "most violent crimes are not premeditated. They are committed in anger, in the heat of passion or under the influence of alcohol. The prospect of a life sentence is not going to stop people who are acting impulsively, without thought to the likely consequences of their actions."(CITE) With this the ACLU asserts that criminals hardly ever consider penalties and consequences because they rarely consider being apprehended. "According to the American Bar Association, out of the approximately 34 million serious crimes committed each year in the U.S., only 3 million result in arrests."(CITE) However, their argument becomes far more constitutionally oriented as you examine it further. Noticing how the framers of our constitution expected our system to run, the ACLU argues, "Under our system of criminal justice, the punishment must fit the crime. Individuals should not be executed for burglarizing a house nor incarcerated for life for committing relatively minor offenses, even when they commit several of them. This principle, known as "proportionality," is expressed in the Eighth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."(CITE) Critics believe that the three strikes law fails to take into consideration the very important gravity of the crime. For instance, critics believe it is wrong to give someone a life sentences without parole for crimes as minimal as possession of marijuana or prostitution. In California, the first two strikes must be violent crimes, yet the third can be rather minimal in nature. A non-violent crime such as petty theft can warrant a third strike. This is the inherent point of the ACLU argument, which they have presented in the following hypothetical scenario: "An 18-year old high school senior pushes a classmate down to steal his Michael Jordan $150 sneakers -- Strike One; he gets out of jail and shoplifts a jacket from the Bon Marche, pushing aside the clerk as he runs out of the store Strike Two; he gets out of jail, straightens out, and nine years later gets in a fight in a bar and intentionally hits someone, breaking his nose -- criminal behavior, to be sure, but hardly the crime of the century, yet it is Strike Three. He is sent to prison for the rest of his life."(CITE) Looking at that example the three strikes law seems flawed, which is the very reason why so many individuals strongly oppose it.

Minority communities have probably been the most affected by the three strikes law because minorities are more likely to be serving a sentence under the law than the white majority. In California, as of December 31, 2001, the breakdown by race of second and third strike offenders was: 26.2% white; 31.4% Hispanic; 38.2% Black; 4.1% Other (CITE). Given these statistics, 73.6% of inmates serving for second or third strike offenses are from minority groups. Despite the obvious statistical evidence that there is a bias in the way that the law is being applied, it is highly unlikely that the courts will rule that this is a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), the court ruled that statistical evidence showing bias in the system is not enough to prove intentional discrimination and suggested that the, "legislatures are better at assessing statistical studies and assigning moral significance to their findings" (CITE). Given that politicians are unlikely to change aspects of the three strikes law for fear of being viewed as "soft on crime," the overrepresentation of minority inmates will continue to have huge socio-legal implications.

There are a number of reasons that can account for the large percentage of minorities serving sentences under the three strikes law. Usually, inner-city neighborhoods, with a large percentage of minorities, suffer from higher crime rates and thus become the focus of "quality of life" policing (CITE). "The theory behind quality-of-life policing is that subjecting people to regular frisks and reducing the incidence of quality-of-life crimes will also prevent more serious crime by promoting a sense of law and order, making it more costly to carry weapons in public, and using arrests for minor infractions to detect, detain, and deter more serious criminals" (CITE). The more pronounced presence of law enforcement in these areas increases the likelihood of contact between the police and members of the community. Therefore, since minorities are more likely to be living in crime-ridden areas and come in contact with police more frequently, they are more likely to get caught committing illegal activities. However the three strikes law cannot be defined as prejudice against minorities because it has been ruled that statistics are not enough to prove intentional discrimination and that the law is applied to everyone, no matter what the race of the criminal. Therefore there must be clear evidence that one groups civil liberties are being infringed upon and there is no such evidence within the guidelines of the third strike law.

Quickly the question that arises becomes, is three strikes having a strong enough effect to warrant the acceptance of problems that it may have in order to inhibit crime? This question will be answered in the following research.

Data

As previously stated, the three strikes law is being questioned because of its tendency to violate, as critics assert, inherent liberties. The overall question that needs to be answered becomes, is three strikes doing enough good that it may be worth the negative side effects. To start, it is necessary to answer the first question, is three strikes lowering crime? Three strikes went into effect March 7, 1994 at 2:45 p.m. Pacific Standard Time. Therefore, data has been obtained from 1994 up until the year 2000, looking at the sum of violent crime during the first six years of its existence. The obtained data is presented in the pivot table below.

Sum of Violent Crime Total
Year	Total
1993	336100
1994	318946
1995	304998
1996	274675
1997	257409
1998	229766
1999	209675

As the able demonstrates, a very substantial drop in crime has taken place since the three strikes law took effect early in 1994. The initial drop during the first year was a modest 13,948 violent crimes, followed with an enormous 30,323 drop in reported violent crimes in its second year of existence. Statistics continue to decrease throughout the early tenure, finishing at 209,675 through 1999. That is 126,425 less crimes than were committed in 1993. However, a statistic that needs to be further examined is the drop in crime between 1993 and 1994, a total of 17,154 crimes. This drop, before the existence of the three strikes law, was larger than the initial drop between 1994 and 1995. This could be coincidental, and at the same time it could not. Yet, in order to determine this for sure, more statistics need to be revealed.

In order to ascertain the truth about the three strikes law, the vital statistic that needs to be examined is percentage of crime rate. The percentage of crime rate regression from the years 1994 through 1999 will give a stable idea if the three strikes law is effective. If the crime rate does not have a substantial reduction, it is literally inevitable that critics will argue to have the law dismissed. A lowering crime rate would affirm the effectiveness of the three strikes law. It is precisely what the law was designed for, with intentions to lower crime rate thus protecting citizens and cleaning up the state. The table below shows the reduction of crime between the years of 1993 through 1999. Remember when assessing the data presented that the graph is the rising reduction percentage is in actuality a lowering, not a rising crime rate.

Sum of Drop in Crime Rate Total
Year	Total
1993	0
1994	0.063
1995	0.102
1996	0.199
1997	0.262
1998	0.352
1999	0.409

The first graph gives a realistic idea of the dropping crime rate during the years of the three strikes laws existence. The second exhibit, a pivot table above, gives the actual percentage of lowering crime rate. The numbers continue to be impressive, and it seems as if the case for the advocates of three strikes is getting continually stronger. Looking at the numbers you see a consistent, growing reduction in crime rate. In its first year it only reduced six percent. If this percentage had maintained itself, surely, the case against the three strikes law would be the one growing. Yet, it continued to strengthen itself. In its third year of legal life it lowered the crime rate almost twenty percent. From there it steadily rose to nearly forty one percent of its initial 1993 status. From the looks of these statistics it would be reasonable to assume that the three strikes law is doing exactly what it was designed, and later adopted to do. Looking at the scatter plot of the data, which assess the relationship of two variables, the assumption is affirmed.

A scatter plot graph can aid in the assessment of the relation ship of two variables. Looking at the chart above we can come up with a .99 R squared score, which is a very strong relationship between the variable of percent drop in crime rate and year. The relationship is very strong and it would be logical to assert that the relationship is causal. Henceforth, since the existence of the three strikes law, there has been a strong positive relationship between the lowering crime rate and the years since the laws enactment.

One last statistics that is very persuasive towards the argument of the effectiveness of three strikes. Also calculated within this statistical data were the crimes not committed during the time studies above. What this means is, working from the rate apparent at the time, data was calculated to hypothesize how many crimes would have been committed had the three strikes law not have been put into effect. The data is listed below:

Sum of Violent Crimes Avoided
Year	Total
1993	0
1994	17154
1995	31102
1996	61425
1997	78691
1998	106334
1999	126335
Grand Total	421041

There are many ways to assess the data above, however it may be relevant to take into account the statement put forth by Josh Rosenblum, a strong advocate of the three strikes legislation. In defense of the three strikes law, Rosenblum mentioned how the FBI stated that almost everyone has a realistic chance of being affected by a violent crime such as murder. Since its 1994, when the three strikes law was enacted, over 421,000 crimes have not been committed. Is this definitely because the three strikes law was enacted, possibly not. However, coupled with the other evidence presented, it is almost impossible to deny its affect on the state of crime. Therefore, most likely because of the law, almost half a million citizens have been saved from some sort of violent crime. This number is as astounding as it is impressive. From the evidence presented here, a statistical case has been presented for the three strikes law. Now, the only step left is to conclude if the strength of the case is enough to justify its flaws.

Conclusion

Without a doubt, the three strikes law is very controversial. The intent of its framers was honorable and just, yet, many of the methods they employed may be unconstitutional. Between the debaters, tension is rising and the issues have never been more mainstream. After reviewing the main points of both arguments, it was difficult not to be persuaded in one direction over the other. Both groups emphasized highly pertinent points within there extremely convincing arguments. While all the citizenry is against crime and its effects, many cannot digest the constitutional rights taken away by the three strikes legislation. In order to ascertain the truth, it was critical to examine how proficient the performance of the three strikes law was. The research attempted here, was designed to assess the efficiency of the law, in order to ultimately determine if the ends justified the means. The results were much stronger than expected. Although, this research hypothesized that three strikes does clean up crime, even these results were unexpected. Despite the presented hypothesis, the burden of proof to determine that three strikes was a proper law was quite high after reading the critics opinions. However, the numbers do not lie. The astounding statistics do nothing but persuade dissenters that the law is doing what it was intended to do. Looking at the dropping number of crimes, decreasing crime rate, and number of crimes not committed, citizens have to be pleased with the three strikes law. The bottom line is, three strikes is doing positive things for our society. Although it may have some negative points, when it is looked at in aggregate it is exactly what was needed to stop a dangerously high crime rate. Something had to be done, and a measure was taken to reverse the trend, and it did its job. In order to find middle group between advocates and critics, revisions will have to be made. As proficient as three strikes is, there is no denying its flaws. Many have a problem with the fact that judges have no sentencing power because if a defendant is convicted, yet they must sentence him with life in prison without the possibility of parole. Other problems include the double jeopardy dilemma, and the notion that minimal crimes can send you away for life. Everything is relative though. For every person who gets life for possession of marijuana, another received life for manslaughter. The real problem may be our prison system, which is designed to rehabilitate inmates. With a national recidivism rate at nearly 65% entering 1994, something had to be done to fix their error. (CITE Bureau of justice) If criminals get into the position to commit not one, not two, but three crimes something is wrong. It is important to consider the damages being done to society. Do career criminals deserve the benefit of the doubt? Do these criminals deserve easier sentences with the third crime they committed? These questions are what drove legislators, law enforcement and even the president to endorse the three strikes law. It is tough on criminals and deters dangerous activity. Essentially, the three strikes law is doing its job. Its intent has been satisfied, and it has done wonders to clean up crime. The numbers did not lie, and proved the progress in diminishing crime. Crime has met a serious enemy, one that is inhibiting the prospect of career criminals. Crime is losing the battle, and the three strikes law is finding its place as one of the most successful laws in crime fighting history.