Three Strikes Law

Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarian approach states that humans are rational actors. Humans can weigh the costs and benefits of a situation. Therefore, if the punishment is too severe, humans will not commit crimes. In theory, the three strikes law acts as a general deterrence, affecting other’s will to commit crimes. The three strikes law achieves part of the goal of punishment for the utilitarian approach, it controls the actions of the offender and deters others from committing crimes (specific and general deterrence). However, the utilitarian approach also states that punishment should rehabilitate the offender. Punishment should be individualized and taken on a case-by-case basis. With the three strikes law, punishment becomes too generalized and there is no indeterminate sentencing to see if offenders could be released early if they are rehabilitated. Furthermore, a 2004 study concluded that “...it does not appear that three-strikes in California has had a significant deterrent or incapacitative effect on crime”. For these reasons, not acting as an effective deterrence and not individualizing punishment, the three-strikes …show more content…
drug offenses or motor vehicle theft) also count as the third strike. This causes disproportional sentencing as minor offenses suddenly lead to severe punishment. Immanuel Kant’s retributive approach states that punishment should be proportional to the crime. He states that the principle of equality, not treating one side more favorably than the other, should be the standard for legal justice. An eye for an eye, each sentencing should be proportional to the crime committed. Under the three strike law, the third conviction is uncompromising with its sentence demanding a minimum 25 years to life in prison. Because there is no equality between the third crime and the punishment for the three strikes law, the retributive approach does not align with the