A three strikes law mandates a long prison sentence for habitual offenders after committing three felonies, with the possibility of parole after 25 years. Proponents argue it acts as a deterrent, while opponents criticize its inflexibility and absurd circumstances.
A three strikes law is a law that mandates a long prison sentence for habitual offenders. Several states, including California and Washington, have such laws on their books, and several nations also have such laws, while others are debating the passage of similar laws. The idea behind a three strikes law is to get repeat offenders off the streets, ensuring they cannot continue to commit crimes. However, opponents of such laws have argued that the language is often less than ideal, and people have been given life sentences for things like stealing cookies and slices of pizza because these laws are so inflexible.
Typically, a three strikes law states that after the commission of three felonies, someone must be sentenced to life in prison, with the possibility of parole after serving at least 25 years. Criminal record must also include a history of violent or serious crimes. If, for example, someone is committed to rape, battery, and felony theft on separate charges, that person would be sent to prison under this type of law.
The term “three hits law” is a reference to the sport of baseball, in which players are allowed three “hits” or passes while batting. In the rules of baseball, if a player fails to hit a ball when he passes into the strike zone at home plate, he is “out.” The same concept is invoked in the language of three strikes, or habitual offender laws, as in “three strikes and the offender is out of society.”
Proponents of habitual offender laws have pointed out that in regions where a three-strikes law is in place, crime rates tend to drop after the law is passed, suggesting that it acts as a deterrent and that locking people up actually prevents the crime. They also argue that such laws prevent crimes that would not be preventable under other sentencing rules. For example, a repeat offender with a history of violence against women could be paroled in a region without a three-strike law, potentially putting the offender in a position to attack more women, but in a region with a habitual offender law , the offender could be prevented from committing future crimes.
Opponents argue that the inflexibility of the three-strike laws is highly problematic. Normally, judges may use some discretion in sentencing, balancing the spirit of the law with the nature of the case, but in a region with a habitual offender law, the judge must send the defendant to prison. In California, voters faced this problem in 2000 when they voted to allow judges to send repeat drug offenders to rehabilitation programs, rather than prison.
These laws also create absurd circumstances at times, due to the language about a “history of violent or serious crime”. Anyone who commits a single violent or serious crime risks going to prison under the three strikes law if he commits two other crimes, even if they are not violent or serious. This leads to high incarceration rates for people who may not belong in prison.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
