U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Foreword: Three Strikes in a Nutshell

NCJ Number
175176
Journal
Thomas Jefferson Law Review Volume: 20 Issue: 1 Dated: Spring 1998 Pages: 1-95
Author(s)
E G Luna
Date Published
1998
Length
95 pages
Annotation
California's anti-recidivist law known as the Three Strikes law is examined in terms of the history of habitual offender laws; the origin, theory, and provisions of Three Strikes; the socioeconomic and pragmatic arguments for and against the law; the law's current status; and its future.
Abstract
The concept of increasing the punishment for repeat offenders dates back several centuries. Forty-seven States, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Government all currently have some kind of anti-recidivist law. More than 80 percent of these laws require life imprisonment for repeat offenders; most preclude parole. California's Three Strikes law was enacted in 1994 amid media dramatization leading to a heightened general perception of crime, isolated but horrible incidents of violence, and politicians' use of a catch phrase to be tough on crime in an election year. The law's main justification is selective incapacitation. Deterrence is also a theory. However, the law rejects both rehabilitation and retribution. It contains several provisions that limit statutory, judicial, and prosecutorial methods to reduce a criminal's sentence. Supporters argue that it is morally justifiable, addresses rising long-term crime rates, addresses the extreme recidivist, and has several other benefits. Opponents argue that it is overly inclusive and unfair, will covertly worsen racism, is too costly, and has other disadvantages. The law raises several constitutional issues, but most are fundamentally flawed or simply lack merit. However, the constitutional challenges based on cruel and unusual punishment and the use of juvenile adjudications as predicate felonies deserve thoughtful consideration. Only time will tell whether the law will reduce recidivism and protect law-abiding citizens or whether it will only bankrupt California and clog the criminal justice system while dispensing draconian punishment. Footnotes and appended text of the law