No, It Doesn’t Act as a Deterrent

California’s three-strikes law, which imposes mandatory sentences of 25 years to life for those convicted of third felonies, is regarded as the nation’s toughest sentencing law. Yet while supporters attribute the drop in violent crimes and homicides to the controversial law, a study released recently by University of California researchers found no evidence it is a deterrent to crime. According to the study, almost 50,000 felons have been sent to prison under the law since 1994. MAURA E. MONTELLANO spoke with Mike Reynolds, the law’s co-author and father of a murdered woman, and Keith Morgan, an inmates’ advocate.

*

There were repetitive crime provisions already on the books before three strikes. You could get good-time credits while you were in prison. This meant that if you had no incidents against your record while in prison, you would get a reduction in the time you had to serve. Now, if you have two convictions of felonies, regardless of how old they are, you can get 25 years to life with a third felony. You could be 90 years old, with two felonies from 60 or 70 years ago and receive a mandatory life sentence for a third offense, as long as it is a felony. It doesn’t have to be murder or serious crime, just a felony.

I don’t think it’s a deterrent. Before the three-strikes law, crime was decreasing substantially. Even when the initiative wasn’t on the books, crime had leveled off. Statistics prove this. The crime rate has been dropping all along, and three strikes should not get credit for the decrease. There are more self-help groups out there, supporting people with their problems. Church groups are springing up everywhere helping out. Another contributing factor is neighborhood policing. Community involvement is a key factor in reducing crime.

The law is too harsh. The way it’s being carried out here in California is outrageous. We are the greatest abusers of this law. Judges should have sentencing discretion. They should be able to look at each situation and determine the first two offenses and decide if the current offense is serious enough for life without parole. This law takes that away from them. In L.A. County, the policy of Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti’s office is that regardless of the petty offense that one commits, it can be charged as a third strike. Clearly, when getting 25 years to life, the punishment does not fit the crime most of the time. The law was passed to protect society from violent and dangerous criminals. Things like shoplifting food, diapers or getting caught with small amounts of marijuana should not merit life in prison. These are not serious, dangerous crimes. These people are not a danger to society. They just need help; they are asking for it.

In the end, it’s cheaper to treat them. The cost for incarceration is roughly $25,000 a year per inmate for as long as they are in prison, whereas treatment is overwhelmingly less. Helping people is also the moral thing to do. This initiative has clogged courts and jails. There are so many cases of these petty third offenses that it’s overloading the courts and slowing the process. The jails are being overcrowded with nonviolent offenders, which is a waste of taxpayers’ money.

The three-strikes law should apply to violent and truly serious crimes only. There should be a limit on how far back the first two strikes could have occurred. A man I know had two petty burglaries in 1969 and a drunk driving conviction in 1972. Medical records indicate he has a tremendous amount of stress and personal problems. He needed help and was denied it in so many places. So in desperation, he stole a $12 shirt not knowing he could get 25 years. So instead of the year in jail he thought he would get, and then help, he is now serving 25 years to life. It’s a gross abuse of the law. What he needs is help, not prison.