On March 7, 1994, the governor of California signed into law the "Three Strikes" legislation (Harris & Jesilow, 2000, P185). The law was originally set in place to hold those who committed serious felony offenses accountable for their second and third convictions, and intended to send a “…message to those who would prey on the innocent” (Harris & Jesilow, 2000, P185). The second offense would include penalty twice the prison term and a third would result in a sentence three times the normal stint given or a term of twenty-five years to life, whichever is greater. The “Three Strikes” law significantly disrupted the efficiency of the court system by increased trials and greater workloads and made predictions of case outcomes difficult. The “Three Strikes” law not only cause and influx of work and jail population but was also ineffective in “punishing” those who were committing the crimes, eventually leading to a revision of the law in 2012.
The inefficiency in the judicial system was due to first-time felony convictions being more likely to go to trial instead of a plea offer. Prisons were quickly becoming over populated and judges were resorting to dismissing cases in the interest of justice. Prosecutors would
…show more content…
Jury nullification is the constitutional power that jurors have to say not guilty, even if they think a defendant technically did commit a crime. They may feel that the law is unfair or it's selectively applied to the case (Butler,1995). The “Three Strikes” law caused the observance of harsh and extensive sentencing which could have been turned around with the assistance of jury nullification. Which would have prevented non-violent offenders from serving long sentences that do not fit the