“Law in Action” While three strikes laws provided high hopes for many states, especially California, in controlling crime through deterrence and incapacitation, these laws produced many conflicting outcomes and consequences. As a means to better understand the actual application of these laws, the following will provide empirical research on the various impacts that three strikes had on crime, prisons, local and state criminal justice systems, and the public. While presenting both, positive and negative aspects of these laws, particular focus remains on the adverse outcomes associated with the implementation of three strikes laws.
Crime
As most sentencing laws, three strikes, was intended to limit crime. Research suggests that national …show more content…
Some would agree that providing severe sentencing options would deter some offenders from engaging in crime. However, research is limited in regard to the direct impact that three strikes laws have on deterring crime. Proponents of these laws have cited empirical evidence that claims prisoners do acquire about their strike status, thus indicating a deterrent effect, however, this claim remains questionable due to a lack of statistical support. An analysis conducted by the RAND Corporation during the late 90’s, assumed that three strikes would not have a deterrent effect on potential offenders, but would have an incapacitate effect by reducing the number of felonies committed by adults in California between 22 and 34 percent (Dickey & Hollenhorst, 1995). In a follow-up assessment, RAND indicated that incarcerating people does prevent them from engaging in crime, but raised concern about the millions of dollars invested in prisons as the result of three strikes offenders, to prevent 60 crimes annually (Dickey & Hollenhorst, …show more content…
The results provided that three strikes had minimal effects in most states, in that fifteen states had between zero and six individuals sentenced under these provisions, and only three individuals had been convicted under federal laws (Brown & Jolivette, 2005). California and Georgia were the most effected, in that, California continues to have the most offenders sentenced under three strikes, 40,000, and Georgia with 2,000 (Brown & Jolivette,
Crime
As most sentencing laws, three strikes, was intended to limit crime. Research suggests that national …show more content…
Some would agree that providing severe sentencing options would deter some offenders from engaging in crime. However, research is limited in regard to the direct impact that three strikes laws have on deterring crime. Proponents of these laws have cited empirical evidence that claims prisoners do acquire about their strike status, thus indicating a deterrent effect, however, this claim remains questionable due to a lack of statistical support. An analysis conducted by the RAND Corporation during the late 90’s, assumed that three strikes would not have a deterrent effect on potential offenders, but would have an incapacitate effect by reducing the number of felonies committed by adults in California between 22 and 34 percent (Dickey & Hollenhorst, 1995). In a follow-up assessment, RAND indicated that incarcerating people does prevent them from engaging in crime, but raised concern about the millions of dollars invested in prisons as the result of three strikes offenders, to prevent 60 crimes annually (Dickey & Hollenhorst, …show more content…
The results provided that three strikes had minimal effects in most states, in that fifteen states had between zero and six individuals sentenced under these provisions, and only three individuals had been convicted under federal laws (Brown & Jolivette, 2005). California and Georgia were the most effected, in that, California continues to have the most offenders sentenced under three strikes, 40,000, and Georgia with 2,000 (Brown & Jolivette,