3 Strikes

I've never been a fan of California's (and other states) three-strikes law. I recognize the deterrent effect of the law but it also strikes me (no pun intended) as overly draconian, particularly if the second and third strikes are for minor crimes. I also think it is unnecessarily restrictive by eliminating a judge's discretion in sentencing and mandating at least a 25 year prison sentence.

It's laws like this that lead to the US having the highest incarceration rate (1.6 million people or 1 out of every 100 adults) in the world.

Recent research on the impact of the three strikes law points to another consequence that is dangerous and clearly unintended.

From Slate...

A new study released by the National Bureau of Economic Research finds that three-strikes laws like California's, while discouraging criminals from doing things like smoking pot or shoplifting, may push those who do continue in a life of crime to commit more violent offenses. The study's author argues that this is because under such laws, felons with a pair of strikes against them have little to lose (and often much to gain) by committing serious crimes rather than minor offenses.

Three-strike-eligible criminals who actually do get arrested for a third offense commit more serious crimes. Burglars, for example, become robbers—these are both offenses that involve stealing, but robbery has the added element of force. Similarly, while thefts decline overall, assaults during thefts go up under three strikes, suggesting that an increasing number of thieves may, in desperation, be trying to muscle their way out of a third arrest.

If strike three is looming, it's all the same to you whether you end up on trial for shoplifting or armed assault, so why not try to shoot your way out of an arrest?