Three Strikes Law In California

Mandatory Sentencing The three strikes legislation is used as a deterrent in different states. This makes sense because if someone is aware that they will receive consequences for their actions, it will make them think twice before committing another crime. “Habitual felony laws, commonly known as three strikes legislation, began in 1993 when an initiative was placed on the ballot in Washington State, mandating the punishment of life imprisonment without parole for offenders convicted for a third time of specified violent or serious felonies.” (Banks, 2017).

Three Strikes Law In California I. INTRODUCTION

“California's Three Strikes sentencing law was originally enacted in 1994. The Legislature’s version of the law was created by amending

In 1989, the state of California arrested 590,285 individuals for felonies, and violent offenses were at 118,601. In 1994, the year the law was enacted, felonies were at 581,264, and violent offenses were at 154,138. In 2005, felonies were at 538,166, and violent offenses were at 125,725. (Department of Justice. (n.d.)). The amount of felonies has dropped since the law was enacted, and violent offenses increased in 1994, but dropped again in 2005. For California, it seems like the three strikes rule has worked in deterring crime.

Public Opinion on Three Strikes

According to an article by the ACLU, the three strikes law should be opposed. One of their reasons was that the three strikes law could lead to more violence. “Many law enforcement professionals oppose the "3 Strikes" law out of fear such laws would spur a dramatic increase in violence against police, corrections officers and the public” (ACLU, n.d.). Another reason why the three strikes law should be opposed, is because the three strikes will have a disproportionate impact on minority offenders. Being a minority is hard enough, minority offenders may be targeted and will receive more life sentences under three strikes rule. Lastly, the three Strikes laws will impose life sentences on offenders whose crimes don't warrant such harsh punishment. Not all crimes are the same. A violent offense such as breaking someone’s nose, as opposed to rape should not be given the same sentence. Yes, violence is never the answer, but it is not the equivalent to rape. The punishment should fit the crime. I oppose the three strikes legislation, a judge should be able to use discretion, and should not be forced to use mandatory sentencing. Judges should be able to sentence each individual based on what they think is best for the person. Sometimes certain individuals deserve a second chance or a break, the three strikes law will