The 1993 abduction and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas by a repeat felon shocked the nation and fueled the enactment of California's "three strikes" policy. The harshest criminal sentencing scheme in America, the three strikes law mandates a 25-years-to-life prison sentence for any felony offense if the defendant already has two serious or violent felony convictions. While three strikes was created with good intentions, the unintended consequences are devastating, fundamentally unjust and unacceptably costly.
Take the case of Norman Williams, who burglarized an unoccupied apartment in 1982 and an unoccupied art studio in 1992. In neither case did he actually make off with any property. However, as a homeless drug addict in 1997, Williams stole a floor jack from a tow truck and was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison under three strikes. Fortunately, Williams was released in 2009 after prosecutors agreed with Williams' advocates that his sentence was inappropriately harsh.
Proponents of three strikes claim that a small number of career criminals commit most of the crimes; it follows then that the overall crime rate will drop if that small group is kept locked up. However, the hard data shows no decrease in overall crime in states that have increased their incarceration rates. Some point specifically to the fact that California's crime rate dropped by half at the passage of the three strikes law. The critics counter that crime rates were already dropping at the time.
Three strike opponents argue that life sentences for petty crimes, regardless of criminal history, are fundamentally wrong and an abuse of power. Beyond the moral implications, opponents point to a May 2010 California State Auditor report which determined that the current 41,000 three strikes prisoners cost the state $19.2 billion. Fifty-three percent of those inmates are in for non-violent offenses and 79 percent are only on their second strike, which results in a double-than-normal sentence.
It seems fiscally irresponsible during a state budget crisis to be warehousing inmates for 25 years to life for non-violent and non-serious offenses. That viewpoint is what three strikes opponents are counting on as they are attempting to get an initiative on next year's ballot. The hope is to amend three strikes to require that the third offense must also be serious or violent. However, a 2004 attempt to do so failed by three percent.
Three strikes opponents hope California voters will scoff at paying $50,000 a year to incarcerate someone for life for stealing socks or VHS tapes as Christmas gifts. Only time will tell if the initiative strikes a nerve with voters. Nevertheless, prosecutors and legislators should take a hard look at the practical impact of three strikes and explore whether it does what it sets out to do.
