“For it's one, two, three strikes, you're out, at the old ball game”, has become not only relevant in any traditional seventh inning baseball game, but has described and could possibly be the reason why our prisons are flooding with inmates. The enactment of the three strikes law has produced thousands of more cases with also fewer guilty please by defendants, leaving our criminal justice in jeopardy because of the lack of time, money, and people needed to get every case efficiently completed. With an increase of jury trials, courts are also pushing less serious cases out of court and even releasing offenders early to abide by court-ordered population caps all because of the three strikes law.
The United States, which has less than 5 percent of the world's population, has about one-quarter of its prisoners. But the relentless rise in the nation's prison population has suddenly slowed as many states discover that it is simply too expensive to over incarcerate. Between 1987 and 2007 the prison population nearly tripled, from 585,000 to almost 1.6 million. Much of that increase occurred in states, many with falling crime rates, that had adopted overly harsh punishment policies, such as the ''three strikes and you're out'' rule and drug laws requiring that nonviolent drug offenders be locked away. These policies have been hugely costly. According to the Pew Center on the States, state spending from general funds on corrections increased from $10.6 billion in 1987 to more than $44 billion in 2007, a 127 percent increase in inflation-adjusted dollars. In the same period, adjusted spending on higher education increased only 21 percent(New York Times 2010). California is perhaps one of the only states being so drastically exposed in a negative outcome because of the three strikes policy, because of severe budget issues. It is appalling to see the amount of commitment and money given to the prison population being much greater then compared to the education given towards the children of the future.
California’s three strikes policy is particularly atypical in that it is widely applied toward nonviolent offenders. As of 2005, 37% of second and third-strike offenders had been incarcerated for “crimes against persons,” 30%for property crimes, 23% for drug offenses, and 10% for other offenses such as weapons possession (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005). In contrast, 96% of the cases prosecuted under Three Strikes in Washington by March 2006 involved violent offenses (State of Washington Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2006). As Washington is not being greatly affected as compared to California, this one statistic should prove that we should not be locking people for life up who’s last strike could have been for stealing a pair of socks or littering. This law was enacted in hopes to detter criminals and their activity, but instead has filled prisons with potentially non-violent offenders. If our tax dollars are being spent, it would be nice to know money is being spent to keep dangerous people off of the street rather then someone who broke the law three times, with one of those three offenses being violent because there are far worse life threatening people that need to be occupying cells.
References:
Chen, E. The liberation hypothesis and racial and ethnic disparities in the application of California’s Three Strikes Law, 6(2), Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice.
Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2005). A primer: Three strikes. The impact after more than a decade. Sacramento, CA: Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Prisons and Budgets :[Editorial]. (2010, January 4). New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)), p. A.20. Retrieved November 22, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1931957391).
Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission. (2006).
offender sentencing in Washington State through March 2006Two strikes and three strikes: Persistent. Olympia, WA: Author.
The United States, which has less than 5 percent of the world's population, has about one-quarter of its prisoners. But the relentless rise in the nation's prison population has suddenly slowed as many states discover that it is simply too expensive to over incarcerate. Between 1987 and 2007 the prison population nearly tripled, from 585,000 to almost 1.6 million. Much of that increase occurred in states, many with falling crime rates, that had adopted overly harsh punishment policies, such as the ''three strikes and you're out'' rule and drug laws requiring that nonviolent drug offenders be locked away. These policies have been hugely costly. According to the Pew Center on the States, state spending from general funds on corrections increased from $10.6 billion in 1987 to more than $44 billion in 2007, a 127 percent increase in inflation-adjusted dollars. In the same period, adjusted spending on higher education increased only 21 percent(New York Times 2010). California is perhaps one of the only states being so drastically exposed in a negative outcome because of the three strikes policy, because of severe budget issues. It is appalling to see the amount of commitment and money given to the prison population being much greater then compared to the education given towards the children of the future.
California’s three strikes policy is particularly atypical in that it is widely applied toward nonviolent offenders. As of 2005, 37% of second and third-strike offenders had been incarcerated for “crimes against persons,” 30%for property crimes, 23% for drug offenses, and 10% for other offenses such as weapons possession (Legislative Analyst’s Office, 2005). In contrast, 96% of the cases prosecuted under Three Strikes in Washington by March 2006 involved violent offenses (State of Washington Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2006). As Washington is not being greatly affected as compared to California, this one statistic should prove that we should not be locking people for life up who’s last strike could have been for stealing a pair of socks or littering. This law was enacted in hopes to detter criminals and their activity, but instead has filled prisons with potentially non-violent offenders. If our tax dollars are being spent, it would be nice to know money is being spent to keep dangerous people off of the street rather then someone who broke the law three times, with one of those three offenses being violent because there are far worse life threatening people that need to be occupying cells.
References:
Chen, E. The liberation hypothesis and racial and ethnic disparities in the application of California’s Three Strikes Law, 6(2), Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice.
Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2005). A primer: Three strikes. The impact after more than a decade. Sacramento, CA: Legislative Analyst’s Office.
Prisons and Budgets :[Editorial]. (2010, January 4). New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)), p. A.20. Retrieved November 22, 2010, from ProQuest Newsstand. (Document ID: 1931957391).
Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission. (2006).
offender sentencing in Washington State through March 2006Two strikes and three strikes: Persistent. Olympia, WA: Author.
