Evaluating the Impact of “three Strikes” Laws on Crime Rates and Prison Populations in California and Washington

The efficacy of three strikes laws has been a topic of contention among researchers since the first such piece of legislation was implemented in the United States nearly two decades ago. With the benefit of hindsight, it is possible to trend their impact through longitudinal analysis. This paper assesses the impact of three strikes legislation in California and Washington; two states which have implemented uniquely divergent forms of mandatory sentencing. It addresses the effect of three strikes law on crime trends and prison populations therein. Results indicated that mandatory sentencing was associated with declines in some areas of crime. However, the decline observed nationally was not proportional to the scope of variations in three strikes laws and the impact on correction institutions has been minimal. This popular legislative response to crime may be in need of revision, specifically regarding the scope of punishable offenses. Critique: A Worldwide Student Journal of Politics 2 Three strikes laws have gained national popularity since the landmark passage of California’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out” sentencing guidelines in 1994. Subsequently, the federal government and most U.S. states have enacted or augmented similar mandatory sentencing laws and habitual offender statutes (Dickey and Hollenhorst 1999). Ostensibly, early reductions in overall crime rates served as justification for three strikes advocates. However, many researchers attribute much of the phenomenon to preexisting trends independent of legislation, asserting that a comprehensive decline was observed in the 1990s throughout North America (Eskridge 2004, 15-23). Regardless, early research studies were only able to analyze month-to-month trends and were largely confined to samples in one state (Stolzenberg and D’Alessio 1997). Now that sufficient time has passed since the first three strikes law was implemented, more detailed longitudinal analyses have been published. Recent studies have indicated that these laws have not yielded results consistent with the initial hype. However, three strikes legislation appears to have modestly influenced crime reductions in some states (Kelly and Datta 2009). The rationale behind the passage of three strikes legislation by the U.S. Congress and over half of the individual states was that mandatory sentencing punishments would effectively deter criminals and protect the general public from those repeat offenders who remain unimpeded by amassing the convicted into the penal system under weighty prison terms (Peak 2010, 312). However, Austin, Clark, Hardyman, and Henry (1999, 138-142) contended that the legislation was actually drafted to be primarily symbolic in nature with little practicality, citing that previously existing crime prevention methods had already been employed by all of the three strikes states. As shown in Table 1, most three strikes states intentionally adopted a minimalist approach to the application of these laws (Dickey and Hollenhorst 1999, 4-7). Accordingly, much of the initial governmental and academic scrutiny of mandatory sentencing focused on California’s zealous enforcement and not necessarily on the “striking out” concept itself (Chen 2008). Critics argued that Critique: A Worldwide Student Journal of Politics 3 formidable mandatory sentences would bombard the courts with defendants who refused to plea bargain in favor of a trial by jury; thus burdening the legal system with excessive case loads, hindering its ability to facilitate speedy trials, and raising court costs to the state. Moreover, they contended that imposing lengthy sentences would prompt an increase in prison populations within already overpopulated facilities (Willis 2007). Ergo, a series of decisions made by legislators had the potential to reverberate across the entire criminal justice system and into local communities. Jurisdiction Year Law Enacted Number of Convictions Data Current as of Alaska 1996 1 8/98 Arkansas 1995 12 8/98 California 1994 40,511 7/98 Colorado 1994 2 8/98 Connecticut 1994 1 8/98 Florida 1995 116 6/98 Georgia 1994 942 3/98 Indiana 1994 38 7/98 Maryland 1994 5 12/97 Montana 1995 0 8/98 Nevada 1995 304 8/98 New Jersey 1995 6 8/98 New Mexico 1994 1 8/98 N. Carolina 1994 5 12/97 Pennsylvania 1995 3 12/96 S. Carolina 1995 825 10/97 Tennessee 1994 5 7/98 Utah 1995 0 8/98 Vermont 1995 4 8/98 Virginia 1994 0 8/98 Washington 1993 121 8/98 Table 1. Use of Three Strikes Laws by State Source: Walter J. Dickey and Pam Hollenhorst, 1999, “Three-Strikes Laws: Five Years Later,” Corrections Management Quarterly, 3