Three Strikes Laws is a policy that has severe unintended consequences from multiple perspectives such as legal, economic, and a Deterrence Theory based perspective. It originally was intended to sentence felons who committed three or more felonies to life in prison. Instead of locking up violent offenders with extensive criminal history who have no chance of changing and becoming productive citizens, the laws tend to lead to felons being locked up for minor crimes. For example, several men throughout the years have been for arrested and convicted for stealing a sandwich and then sentenced to life in prison. Many people have been arrested and convicted for minor drug crimes and then sentenced for life. This was never the intended effect of …show more content…
Despite the fact that realistically what happened was a rare event, public clamor drove politicians to come up with a solution to a perceived problem. Despite the fact the need was minimal, the politicians felt they had to be seen doing something. This is a classic example of law and policy being created after a few high profile cases that actually causes more harm than good. The policy is based on Deterrence Theory which only works for certain people that commit crimes based on rational decision. Deterrence Theory has very little to do with criminals who commit crimes based on impulse or heat of passion such as stealing a sandwich because one is hungry. The laws could be of use if it focused on violent crimes caused by repeat offenders with extensive criminal …show more content…
Three Strikes Laws should be used to lock up people who have been consistently proven as too dangerous for general society. This would have the tangible benefit for locking up people who are willing to hurt others for whatever reason and are not dissuaded by Deterrence Theory. People who have proven they will hurt people without remorse should be locked up. The laws should not apply to people who steal sandwiches. We have far too many people in prisons for minor crimes because they have a criminal history in the past of committing felonies. People who are felons because the person has been arrested multiple times for possession of small amounts of drugs on them. People who have repeatedly panhandled on city streets in violation of ordinances, have been arrested and convicted. If someone has just a substance abuse problem and is only hurting themselves that person should not be in prison for life. If someone smokes crack multiple times, but does not steal, assault, deal drugs, or murder, why is that person in prison while people who do far worse are out on the streets? Society has to make decisions on who to incarcerate. We can do better a better job of prioritizing incarceration as well as allocating our limited