The Deterrent Effect of Three Strikes Law
By John R. Schafer, M.A. |
| Since their inception, societies have attempted to control their members in one form or another. The particular behaviors that become the focus of that control can vary from one culture to another; however, the mechanisms that regulate the behavior remain constant. Essentially, punishment or the threat of punishment for social noncompliance represents the mechanism that deters individuals from engaging in deviant activity.1 The penalty for un�wanted behavior can take the form of legal pro secu�tion, social sanctions, or a combination of both. Researchers have labeled this phenomenon perceptual deterrence.2 |
| The concept of deterrence can be divided into two categories: general deterrence and specific deterrence.3 General deterrence occurs when potential offenders see the consequences of other people�s actions and decide not to engage in the same behavior. Specific deterrence is triggered when offenders realize the consequences of their own past behavior and decide not to commit the same acts.4 |
| Building on the deterrence principle, three strikes laws often are seen as the answer to crime problems in America. Such laws attempt to reduce crime either by incarcerating habitual offenders or deterring potential offenders from committing future crimes. By 1997, 24 states, as well as the federal government, had enacted some form of mandatory sentencing.5 Although all of these laws are referred to as three strikes laws, the provisions and enforcement of each vary greatly from state to state. |
| In California, for example, offenders accrue strikes when they get convicted of serious or violent felonies, and offenders with two strikes receive a third strike when they get convicted of any subsequent felony, violent or nonviolent.6 As of December 1996, the state had prosecuted over 26,000 offenders for their second or third strikes.7 |
|
|
| But questions remain: Will the advent of three strikes laws deter crime, and, more important, will offenders become more likely to kill victims, wit�nesses, and police officers to avoid a life sentence? These questions represent important concerns as the cost of implementing mandatory sentencing laws may well include human lives in addition to monetary resources. |
| California�s Experience |
| The deterrent effect of three strikes laws can be measured best by examining the law�s impact on crime in California, which aggressively prosecutes offenders under the provisions of the state�s three strikes law. Moreover, because young adults remain responsible for the majority of the crimes, any deter�rent effect of this group should significantly reduce the crime rate.
|
| Since California enacted its three strikes law in 1994, crime has dropped 26.9 percent, which trans�lates to 815,000 fewer crimes.8 While the three strikes law cannot be given sole credit for the drop in crime, in many cases it proved an essential missing piece of the crime control puzzle. Furthermore, in the year prior to the law�s passage, California�s population of paroled felons increased by 226 as felons from other |
| Special Agent Schafer is assigned to the Lancaster Resident Agency of the FBI's Los Angeles Field Office. |
 |
|
| Next Page |
|
