| states moved to California. In the year after the law�s enactment, the number of paroled felons plunged as 1,335 moved out of California.9 Though not conclu�sive, this decrease may portend the deterrent effect of the state�s three strikes law. |
| "...when offenders, especially gang members, have two or more strikes, the likelihood of violence increases substantially." |
| Critics of the three strikes law cite the fact that the overall crime rate in 1996 declined nationwide and, more germane, that crime fell in states with no mandatory sentencing laws. These critics attribute the drop to demographics and cite the unusually low number of males in their mid-teens, the crime-prone years. Researchers predict that the crime rate will increase dramatically in the near future because the number of juveniles currently in their preteens far exceeds the normal demo�graphic expectation.10 |
| The Juvenile Factor |
| In truth, crime remains an activity for the young, particularly young men. In 1996, males under age 25 made up 45 percent of the individuals arrested in the United States for index offenses11 This group also committed 46 percent of the violent crimes and 59 percent of property crimes.12 Another well-replicated study found that approx�imately 6 percent of all juveniles commit more than half of the crimes in the United States.13 |
| Not surprisingly, although the overall crime rate in the United States has declined, the juvenile arrest rate for the 5-year period from 1992 to 1996 increased by 21 percent, while adult arrests rose only 7 percent during the same time period.14 A more frightening statistic reveals that each generation of juvenile offenders has been more violent then the generation that preceded it.15 The data suggest that a small number of young offenders commit numerous unpun�ished crimes because the courts, especially the juvenile justice system, provide the offenders with countless �second chances.� These offenders are not held accountable for their actions and thus are not motivated to change their criminal behavior.
|
|
| In 1899, Illinois passed the first Juvenile Court Act in the United States. This act removed adoles�cents from the formal criminal justice system and created special programs for delinquent, dependent, and neglected children.16 Over the ensuing century, juvenile justice has remained cyclical.17 The cycle typically begins when a juvenile or group of juveniles commits an unusually heinous crime that evokes a public outcry. In turn, lawmakers pass stronger legislation for reform. After the tempest subsides, society once again retreats to a position of indiffer�ence, only to be aroused by yet another reprehensible act. This cycle is punctuated by attempts to rehabilitate juvenile offenders; however, these attempts largely have failed. No evidence exists to indicate that traditional one-on-one or group psycho�therapy reduces the recidivism rate.18 Other variables�such as education, vocational training, social worker intervention�or any other methods tried to date have not proven effective in deterring crime.19 |
| In short, the current juvenile justice system does little to rehabilitate or deter young offend�ers from a life of crime. This lack of success has frustrated the public to the point where long-term incarceration appears to be the only solu�tion. For this reason, under the provisions of some three strikes laws, an offender could enter prison as a juvenile and, after a long sentence, be paroled as a middle-aged adult. Long prison sentences incapacitate chronic offenders during their crime-prone years and allow them to reintegrate into society when they have grown less likely to commit additional crimes. |
| In an effort to measure the perceived deterrent effect of California�s three strikes law, the author administered an l8-question survey to all of the 604 offenders housed at Challenger Memorial Youth Center (CMYC), an all-male, residential lock-down facility under the authority of the Los Angeles County Probation Department, in Lancaster, California. Five |
| Next Page |
|
