Three Strikes Law Essay

3102 Words7 Pages

One of the most popular strategies imposed for habitual offenders came in the 1990s, known as three strikes laws. These laws stipulate that if an offender commits a third strike felony, they will be locked up for an extended amount of time, even including life in prison without parole. Three strikes laws are long prison sentences given to repeat offenders for serious violent crimes. Three strikes refers to the popular baseball term “three strikes and you’re out.” With three strikes legislation, offenders with two prior violent felony convictions convicted of a third felony, will receive a 25 year to life sentence. What sounds like an appealing get tough strategy, may in fact do the reverse of its intended result. The three strikes law is an attempt to reduce crime by isolating habitual criminals from a society in which they obviously cannot control themselves in. Recidivism refers to committing the same crime repeatedly, despite having been found guilty and serving the punishment. In this literature review, empirical evidence provided by respected criminal justice …show more content…

However, it is absolutely horrifying to find a policy to actually increase crime, and one that is so demeaning to human life. Obviously, three strikes laws have only been enacted for a couple of decades, and research on empirical evidence is minimal, but the negatives outweigh any benefits to such a policy. This policy found minimal support of its main purposes—reducing crime through deterrence and incapacitation. Given a public safety standpoint, three strikes laws actually increase the likelihood of homicides, which should be the only factor in the demise of a policy. The results of three strikes laws are not supportive of the idea of reducing recidivism, and thus, I believe three strikes legislation should be

Open Document