Unintended Consequences Of The Three Strike Law

Starting in 1993, over half the states and the federal government enacted some form of “three strike and you’re out” legislation also sometimes called the “habitual offender law” (Marion and Oliver, p.350. 2012). The state of Washington was the first to implement the three strike law; the state of California soon followed with a broader version of the law. The three strike law made mandatory those offenders who have been convicted three times for serious crimes to be sentenced to life in prison. Even though adopted versions of the law vary among states, some states reduce judicial discretion while some states allowed some judicial discretion. For example, the state of California requires twenty-five years to life in prison for any individual

One concern with the implementation was overcrowding of the prisons. One study conducted discovered that in the first twelve months of implementation that there was a huge increase in prison populations, however the numbers of incarcerations had leveled off and decrease. Additionally, due to the increase in new incarcerations, thousands of less violent prisoners had to be released. Also, there have been studies that have shown that the three strike laws have had unintended consequences. Two studies showed that the three strike law did not reduce the number of homicides. In fact, the law had the opposite effect. One study, conducted by Marvell and Moody, showed evidence that criminals who are eligible for life in prison due to a third strike are more likely to commit a third offense. Additionally, Kovandzic, Sloan, and Vieraitis presented evidence on homicides rates which increased, subsequent to the passage of the three strike law, from 1980 to 1999 (Marion et al., 2012). The basic thought from these studies was if a criminal was facing life in prison with a third strike; this individual has nothing to lose by murdering a police officer in order to evade arrest. Therefore, the three strike law might have worsened the problem of violent crime vice deter it (Marion et al.,