The History Of The Three Strikes Law

Following the murders of two young girls, both killed by repeat offenders, the people of California decided it was time to eradicate recidivism and crack down on crime. The general view was that violent criminals needed to be kept in prison where they could not harm the public, and the existing criminal justice system was not doing enough to deter crime. Out of this wave of moral outrage came what was to be the harshest sentencing legislation in the country. The “Three Strikes and You’re Out” Law passed with an overwhelming 70% of votes and went into effect in November of 1994. Originally, the Three Strikes Law was intended to keep “murderers, rapists, and child molesters” behind bars where they could not harm anyone, but it was soon apparent

Because any conviction originally counted as a third strike, non-violent people were getting life sentences for crimes that sometimes even seemed silly. One example that received a lot of media attention was the man arrested after stealing a slice of pizza from a kid’s party. At the time, felony petty theft was defined in the California Penal Code as theft of something under $400 with one prior conviction. The Pizza Thief had two prior strikes, so stealing the slice of pizza counted as his third strike. He received a life sentence. Pizza Thief was an extreme case, but the underlying outcome shows exactly how the Three Strikes Law backfired and put people who did not pose a threat to the community in prison for life. If Petty theft with one prior anyone with two strikes could face a life sentence for stealing a magazine or a carton of juice. Stealing is a serious crime, but people usually steal because they are too poor to buy those items. A rap sheet consistent with theft related crimes does not necessarily indicate that a person is violent, but more often that they are stuck at a negative point in their lives they cannot escape. These people do not fit the original spirit of the Three Strikes Law and can be rehabilitated. Here the cruelty in the Three Strikes Law is evident. These people can be fixed. Instead, they are thrown

Judges did not have the discretion to adjust sentences to more justly fit a crime. In 1996 this issue led to a case appealing to the Supreme Court of California in People v. Supreme Court (Romero). The issue in question was whether judges had the power to disregard strikes that would change the sentencing outcome in a Three Strikes case. The Supreme Court held that because judges already had the power to dismiss charges “in the furtherance of justice” and because the Three Strikes Law did not specifically forbid this power, that judges did have the power to strike a strike. This ruling was the first stone in the path to correcting the errors in the Three Strikes Law and the beginning of the end to the “tough on crime” approach of the 1990’s. Defense attorneys could now write Romero Motions to show why the cookie cutter sentencing approach of the Three Strikes Law should not be applied to their client. The goal was to show the judge that this person did not fit within the spirit of the Three Strikes Law and deserved a more lenient sentence. Perhaps this person’s entire criminal history consisted of substance abuse charges and they simply need treatment for their addiction. Perhaps the defendant has no violent priors and they do not pose a threat to the community, therefore do not fit within the scope of the Three Strikes Law original intention. By giving judges the power to dismiss or disregard a