California’s Proposition 184: Three strikes and you’re out. Last year in California voters approved a controversial ballot initiative. Proposition 184, also known as the three strikes and you’re out law, was passed on November 9, 1994. Under this new legislation repeat offenders, upon committing their third felony offense, will be sentenced to a mandatory twenty-five years to life in prison(California 667). The initiative passed by a landslide, with 76% of the voters in favor of it. The State Senate soon after voted the bill into law, with only seven members voting against it.
The three strikes initiative stemmed from the killing of Polly Klass by Richard Allan Davis, a convicted felon. The killing outraged the entire state but what enraged people even more was that Davis had been in and out of prison his whole life and was still free to kill again. Soon people began calling for laws that would put repeat violent offenders behind bars for life. The premise of the new laws became an easy issue for politicians to back. To oppose such legislation seemed to be political suicide, so most politicians backed the initiative.
Although many civil liberties groups opposed such mandatory sentencing measures there was little they could in the face of tremendous voter approval. Many voters did not realize that this bill could put potentially incarcerate people for ludicrous amounts after the commission of a minor offense. Even more voters did not realize the cost of implementing such a bill. Now that this new legislation has been in effect for a year and the tremendous negative effects it have become obvious we must repeal it. One of the issues that must be considered when imposing mandatory sentencing is the increased cost of incarceration.
In the state of California it costs $20,000 per year to incarcerate an inmate under normal circumstances(Cost 1). This amount of money could put one person through a state college for two or three years. According to Beth Carter the three strikes law has placed 1,300 people in prison for a third strike offense and 14,000 people in prison on a second strike offense(1). The current recidivism rate in California is 70%(2), which means that out of those 14,000 people that almost 10,000 will be back in prison for a third strike.
To imprison those 1,300 third strike offenders for the mandatory minimum of twenty-five years will cost the state of California $812,500,000. To support these inmates for longer periods of time we will have to increase the amount of money going to our prison system. This means that either spending in other areas will be cut or an increase of taxes. Neither of which is highly favored by voters. On a national level the Justice Departments budget has increased an alarming 162% since 1987(Cost 2).
The money that is being spent incarcerating these people can be more well spent in other areas. The money can be spent on crime prevention and rehabilitation, rather than retribution. Before the three strikes law was enacted it had been estimated that to keep up with the growing prison population on a national level that it was necessary to spend $100,000,000 per week on our prison system(Ogutu). Now that we will be having more and more criminals behind bars we shall have to spend even more money building and keeping up our overcrowded prisons.
Of these people that taxpayers are paying to imprison Mauer suggests that as many as 80% will be non-violent offenders. So far 80% of the second and third strike offenses have been for non-violent crimes, most of these being drug offenses(23). There have only been only 53 people with second and third strike convictions for rape, murder, and kidnapping(Carter 1). This law’s lack of effectiveness clearly does not warrant its huge price. The other aspect to consider in the implementation of the three strikes legislation is its effect on non-violent offenders.
These are the people hardest hit by this law. It is difficult see how society can justify sending a drug addict to prison for 25 years at a cost of $20,000 per year when the money could be used to fund drug rehabilitation centers and alternative programs for our youth. Most drug users are not in need prison, they are in need of help for their addictions. If a fraction of the money it would cost to imprison them is put toward drug rehabilitation programs it would save the state money, while at the same time helping the individual.
The three strikes legislation is directly aimed at violent crime, but its track record has shown that it has missed the mark by a long shot. Some offenders have been convicted for a third strike on relatively small offenses. For example, a man named Steven Gordon was convicted for his third strike after stealing a wallet that had $100 dollars in it. His previous offenses had all been non-violent, yet he was convicted under our three strikes law(Franklin 26). This is not an isolated incident either.
Franklin cites numerous examples of cases where people were convicted under this legislation for non-violent offenses(26). These types of cases just illustrate how the three strikes legislation is targeting non- violent offenders, as opposed to its goal of targeting violent criminals. After one year in effect it is easy to see what our three-strikes legislation has done. It has become easy to picture the long term effects of such broad legislation on our society. Although this law was enacted by the will of the people, it has not carried out the will of the people.
People wanted a law that would put dangerous repeat offenders behind bars for life. Instead we are now putting an increasingly large number of non-violent offenders behind bars for extended periods of time. It would be easy to justify the cost of removing a violent menace from our society, but justifying the cost of imprisoning people who are of no threat to anyone but themselves is difficult. We must look closely at what this legislation has done so far. It has placed many more non-violent offenders in prison than violent offenders.
The legislation stands to cost the state millions of dollars per year to incarcerate people of longer prison terms. Clearly the three-strikes law has not served its intended purpose it must be repealed. An analysis of Department of Corrections data by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco, CA, in Nov, 1995 indicates that since the enactment of California’s “Three Strikes” law two years ago, 192 have “struck out” for marijuana possession, compared to 40 for murder, 25 for rape, and 24 for kidnapping.
I have a strong proposition for the California Legislature… and that is a strict and logical reform to the present Criminal Justice System in California. “The California Legislature is to be commended for its stance on crime. Not for their “get tough” policies such as the “Three Strikes” law but for their enactment of a little known section of the Penal Code entitled the “Community Based Punishment Act of 1994. ” (Senator Quentin Kopp, Time Magazine Feb 14, 1996).
By passage of this act, the State of California has acknowledged the limitations of incarceration as both punishment and a deterrent to criminal behavior. The legislature has in fact declared that “California’s criminal justice system is seriously out of balance in its heavy dependence upon prison facilities and jails for punishment and its lack of appropriate punishment for non-violent offenders and substance abusers who could be successfully treated in appropriate, less restrictive programs without any increase in danger to the public.
In essence, this law proposes a community based system of intermediate restrictions for non-violent offenders that fall between jail time and traditional probation such as home detention with electronic monitoring, boot camps, mandatory community service and victim restitution, day reporting, and others. Pilot programs are to be developed as a collaborative effort between the state and counties requiring a community based plan describing the sanctions and services to be provided.
A progress report on an act of this kind would be made by the California Board of Corrections on January 1, 1997 and annually thereafter to selected legislative committees. “It seems clear that the California Legislature has determined that incarceration is not appropriate for many criminal offenses and that alternative sanctions are preferable for non- violent offenders. ” (Randy Meyer, Political Official). But while this approach is to be applauded, its spreading prevents the fulfillment of its true potential.
By retaining those non-violent offenders that are currently in state prison and continuing to pursue defensive punishment at the local level in the form of short term “shock incarceration” and bootcamps, the costly and ineffective methods of criminal behavior correction remain intact. ” (Charles Calderon-US News). By immediately eliminating incarceration for all non-violent offenses and requiring victim compensation and community service, resources can be committed to preventing crime rather than to the feeding and housing of offenders.
This is consistent with the findings of the legislature and is cost efficient, requires minimal systemic change, and increases public safety and security. “Our current criminal justice system appears to be based upon the Old Testament proverb that “your eye shall not pity; it shall be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. ” Revenge thus plays a part of the punishment model. ” (LA Official Boland). From a societal standpoint, we expect punishment to prevent the offender and others from further criminal behavior.
Incarceration of offenders as the punishment of choice thus theoretically provides revenge, individual incapacitation, and restriction. But I submit that such a philosophical foundation is flawed. Revenge while understandable from an individual human perspective is not a proper basis for society’s response to the misbehavior of its laws. This human urge to punish should be removed from the current system and replaced with methods of restrictions that utilize the offender’s potential to benefit his victim and society at large. In other words, in a free society the end desired is the correction of behavior that utilizes the least force .
This conforms to the principles of limited government, efficiency, reduced cost, and personal freedom as advocated by both liberals and conservatives alike. The basic underlying concept of this proposal is that incarceration should be reserved for those who are violent and thus dangerous to the public. Violent crimes would be defined broadly to include any act or attempt to injure the person of another except by accident. This would therefore range from murder to driving under the influence with current distinctions of misdemeanor and felony offenses remaining in place.
The court sentencing procedures would also be modified to exclude incarceration for non-violent crimes with an emphasis on victim restitution and community service. The court would maybe rely on probation reports to provide the necessary offender personal history including employment, job skills (or lack of), and personal resources, e. g. bank accounts, property ownership, etc. Based on this information, the court would apply the appropriate sentence of victim restitution and community service with close monitoring by probation officials.
As with all human endeavors, compliance y offenders would most likely not be 100%. The threat of incarceration would have to exist for those failing to submit to or comply with court ordered repayment and public service. Many will not agree with this due to the complexity and in many cases there can be more harm done then it could be beneficial. But for the most part there is no reason to believe that the failure rate would be any higher under this type of system than is currently the case This proposal provides a policy alternative to the current criminal justice emphasis on incarceration as punishment.
It is based on the premise of ffectiveness and cost efficiency with a high regard for individual liberty that is essential to a free society. It moves away from the concept of punishment and focuses on a more functional goal of victim and societal repayment. The proposal offers prevention at the front end rather than repayment at the back end of crime reduction efforts. The advantages of such a system are numerous. One of the most important assets of a revision of this kind is that of allowing for a major change in the criminal justice system with a minimum of disruption to the status quo.
Rather than requiring an entire systemic hange, this proposal works within the current practices of the court, police, and corrections. Indeed, very few authorized changes would have to be made. Enactment of this proposal would eliminate the need for future bond measures for prison construction. Not only would it save taxpayer money, it would be most advantageous to the remaining employees of the California Department of Corrections by allowing for the closure of outdated and unsafe facilities.
In addition, unemployment could be kept to a minimum by offering qualified state correctional officers employment with local law enforcement gencies. It is time now to look beyond revenge and the emotionalism associated with current justice system practices. “There is only one practical method of reducing crime and the subsequent public’s fear and that is through a high level of police presence on the street. ” (Randy Meyer, M. A. ) In essence, this revision allows for a return of the local neighborhood police officer who is familiar with its residents and business owners.
In the final analysis, our very freedom depends on how we treat society’s criminals and misfits. By continuing to create a criminal class that has not been rehabilitated hrough incarceration, we are ultimately sabotaging our own security. Maybe with this we can have a means of reversing the trend of incarceration as punishment while increasing our personal safety and diminishing the fear that is rampant among us. Last year in California voters approved a controversial ballot initiative.
Proposition 184, also known as the three strikes and you’re out law, was passed on November 9, 1994. Under this new legislation repeat offenders, upon committing their third felony offense, will be sentenced to a mandatory twenty-five years to life in prison(California 667). The initiative passed by a landslide, with 76% of the voters in favor of it. The State Senate soon after voted the bill into law, with only seven members voting against it. The three strikes initiative stemmed from the killing of Polly Klass by Richard Allen Davis, a convicted felon.
The killing outraged the entire state but what enraged people even more was that Davis had been in and out of prison his whole life and was still free to kill again. Soon people began calling for laws that would put repeat violent offenders behind bars for life. The premise of he new laws became an easy issue for politicians to back. To oppose such legislation seemed to be political suicide, so most politicians backed the initiative. Although many civil liberties groups opposed such mandatory sentencing measures there was little they could in the face of tremendous voter approval.
Many voters did not realize that this bill could put potentially incarcerate people for ludicrous amounts after the commission of a minor offense. Even more voters did not realize the cost of implementing such a bill. Now that this new legislation has been in effect for a year and the tremendous egative effects it have become obvious we must repeal it. One of the issues that must be considered when imposing mandatory sentencing is the increased cost of incarceration. In the state of California it costs $20,000 per year to incarcerate an inmate under normal circumstances(Cost 1).
This amount of money could put one person through a state college for two or three years. According to Beth Carter the three strikes law has placed 1,300 people in prison for a third strike offense and 14,000 people in prison on a second strike offense(1). The current recidivism rate in California is 70%(2), hich means that out of those 14,000 people that almost 10,000 will be back in prison for a third strike. To imprison those 1,300 third strike offenders for the mandatory minimum of twenty-five years will cost the state of California $812,500,000.
To support these inmates for longer periods of time we will have to increase the amount of money going to our prison system. This means that either spending in other areas will be cut or an increase of taxes. Neither of which is highly favored by voters. On a national level the Justice Departments budget has increased an alarming 162% since 1987(Cost 2). The money that is being spent incarcerating these people can be more well spent in other areas. The money can be spent on crime prevention and rehabilitation, rather than retribution.
Before the three strikes law was enacted it had been estimated that to keep up with the growing prison population on a national level that it was necessary to spend $100,000,000 per week on our prison system(Ogutu). Now that we will be having more and more criminals behind bars we shall have to spend even more money building and keeping up our overcrowded prisons. Of these people that taxpayers are paying to mprison Mauer suggests that as many as 80% will be non-violent offenders. So far 80% of the second and third strike offenses have been for non-violent crimes, most of these being drug offenses(23).
There have only been only 53 people with second and third strike convictions for rape, murder, and kidnapping(Carter 1). This law’s lack of effectiveness clearly does not warrant its huge price. The other aspect to consider in the implementation of the three strikes legislation is its effect on non-violent offenders. These are the people hardest hit by this law. It is difficult see how society can justify sending drug addict to prison for 25 years at a cost of $20,000 per year when the money could be used to fund drug rehabilitation centers and alternative programs for our youth.
Most drug users are not in need prison, they are in need of help for their addictions. If a fraction of the money it would cost to imprison them is put toward drug rehabilitation programs it would save the state money, while at the same time helping the individual. The three strikes legislation is directly aimed at violent crime, but its track record has shown that it has missed the mark by a long shot. Some offenders have been convicted for a third strike on relatively small offenses.
For example, a man named Steven Gordon was convicted for his third strike after stealing a wallet that had $100 dollars in it. His previous offenses had all been non-violent, yet he was convicted under our three strikes law(Franklin 26). This is not an isolated incident either. Franklin cites numerous examples of cases where people were convicted under this legislation for non-violent offenses(26). These types of cases just illustrate how the three strikes legislation is targeting on-violent offenders, as opposed to its goal of targeting violent criminals.
After one year in effect it is easy to see what our three-strikes legislation has done. It has become easy to picture the long term effects of such broad legislation on our society. Although this law was enacted by the will of the people, it has not carried out the will of the people. People wanted a law that would put dangerous repeat offenders behind bars for life. Instead we are now putting an increasingly large number of non-violent offenders behind bars or extended periods of time.
It would be easy to justify the cost of removing a violent menace from our society, but justifying the cost of imprisoning people who are of no threat to anyone but themselves is difficult. We must look closely at what this legislation has done so far. It has placed many more non-violent offenders in prison than violent offenders. The legislation stands to cost the state millions of dollars per year to incarcerate people of longer prison terms. Clearly the three-strikes law has not served its intended purpose it must be repealed.
