Compose a study that explains Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 9, 557–583.

Week 7 – Discussion
Contains unread posts
Jacob Saesee posted Mar 18, 2024 10:41 PM
Subscribe
1). Defend the three-strike law and its influence on the development of capital punishment as a deterrent to criminal behavior.
2). This week’s topic is the three-strike law and its impact on developing capital punishment as a deterrent to criminal behavior. I invite you all to join in the conversation and share your thoughts. Through such discussions, I intend that we can broaden our perspectives and better understand this critical issue. I look forward to hearing from you.
It can be safely said that no politician ever lost a vote by proposing or endorsing laws designed to protect children. In fact, like other strict crime laws, these are often viewed as good business in the political arena, though they also usually make for poor social policy (Radford, 2003). Social policy is a prime illustration of the three-strike laws. In the 1990s in California, the climate was that of violence, as homicides and aggravated assaults peaked in Los Angeles at 48,433 in 1991 from 46,016 in 1990 (Los Angeles Police Department, 1998). Because of this, the media overwhelmed the public with stories about crime and murder, as it was the number one news topic of the 1990s, according to The Center for Media and Public Affairs (1997), and crime stories from 1992 to 1995 featured on news programs from ABC, NBC, and CBS more than tripled from 830 to 2,574.
In California, the local Fresno murder of Kimber Reynolds, who was shot to death by a repeat offender, came to light, and the media continuously reported on this crime (Thompson, 2002). The news sparked fear and outrage, pushing Mike Reynolds (father of Kimber) for harsher penalties against repeat offenders. Due to public outcry following the death of Kimber Reynolds, and in response, Assemblymen Bill Jones and Jim Costa drafted a Three Strikes law legislation; however, this law has not yet been enacted (Johnson & St. Germain, 2005).
In October 1993, another highly publicized murder took place, and this time, it was the kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas from Petaluma, California (Price, 1993). Polly Klaas was also murdered by a repeat violent offender by the name of Richard Davis (Schultz, 2000). Again, there was a public outcry to do something as the media continuously reported on this case. The Polly Klaas murder took California by storm, and using the same language as Assembly Bill 971, Proposition 184 was developed and passed by a landslide by 72% of voters in November 1993 and signed into law in March 1994 (Johnson & St. Germain, 2005). This was the creation of the Three-strike law. As you can see, the media and the public significantly impact politicians’ decisions. In my opinion, it is essential to consider their perspectives and consider them, as they can serve as valuable sources of insight.
The “Three Strikes” legislation emerged in California to raise the level of criminal sanction to keep criminals off the streets longer and deter would-be criminals from committing more serious crimes. In the end, the hope is that these increased sanctions would lower the rate of serious and violent crime (Stolzenburg & D’Alessio, 2002). Thus, the longer criminals stay in prison, the less they can commit crimes and endanger the public. The law was dubbed “three-strikes, and you’re out” because of its provision requiring twenty-five to life prison terms for defendants convicted of any felony who were already convicted of two “serious” or “violent” felonies (Males et al., 1999). In other words, the law mandates a 25-year life imprisonment for individuals found guilty of any felony if they have previously been convicted of two “serious” or “violent” felonies.
The rationale for the laws is that longer prison terms reduce crime by deterring and incapacitating the most active and dangerous criminals (Shichor & Sechrest, 1996). In other words, imposing longer prison terms is a powerful crime deterrent. This is because it incapacitates the most active and dangerous criminals, making it harder for them to carry out their criminal activities. Marvell & Moody (2001) said that because three-strikes laws call for harsh prison terms for criminals with prior convictions, criminals who fear the laws because they have two strikes would be expected to take extra steps to avoid punishment.
In conclusion, since the law has been implanted, Shepherd (2002) concludes that the two- and three-strikes provisions of California’s law resulted in significant deterrent effects on murder, assault, robbery, and burglary rates. Interestingly, murder rates in three-strike states declined 12.9 percent less rapidly than the national trend, indicating that the fear of mandatory sentencing may have motivated certain criminals to eliminate witnesses and visit violence upon arresting officers (Chen, 2008, p. 360). Three-strike laws have proven to be a powerful tool in curbing crime, particularly in cases of murder. The significant changes to these laws have made them even more effective in deterring criminals from committing violent acts. As such, the three-strike laws exemplify how tough legislation can make our communities safer and protect innocent lives.
References:
Center for Media and Public Affairs. (1997). Network news in the nineties: The topic and trends of the decade. Media Monitor, 77(3), 2-3. http://www.cmpa.com/files/media_monitor/97julaug.pdf
Chen, E. Y (2008). Impacts of ‘Three Strikes and You’re Out’ on Crime Trends in California and the United States.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Volume 24, Number 4, p. 345–370.
Johnson, J. L., & St. Germain, M. (2005). Officer down: Implications of three strikes for public safety. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16(4), 443–460.

Los Angeles Police Department. (1998). Analysis of violent crimes in the city of Los Angeles from 1990 to 1997. http://www .lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/violent_crimes_in_la.pdf
Males, M, Macallair, D & Taqi-Eddin Khaled (1999). Striking Out: The Failure of California’s Three Strikes and You’re Out” Law. Justice Policy Institute.
Marvell, T & Moody, C (2001). The Lethal Effects of Three‐Strikes Laws. The Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 30, No. 1 pp. 89–106, The University of Chicago Press for The University of Chicago Law School Stable.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/468112
Price, R. (1993). Anger and anguish over Polly’s death: A tragic end to California kidnap case. USA Today, Sec. A, p. 3.
Radford, B. (2003). Media myth makers. Prometheus Books.
Schultz, D. (2000). No joy in Mudville tonight: The impact of “Three Strike” laws on state and federal corrections policy, resources, and crime control. Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 9, 557–583.
Shepherd, J. (2002). Fear of the First Strike: The Full Deterrent Effect of California’s Two- and Three-Strikes Legislation. Journal of Legal Studies, pp. 31, 159–201.
Shichor, D & Sechrest D, (1996). Criminology and the Recidivist, in Three Strikes and You’re Out: Vengeance as Public Policy 24–52
Stolzenburg, Lisa & Stewart D’Alessio. (1997). “Three strikes and you’re out”: The impact of California’s new mandatory sentencing law on serious crime rates.
Thompson, C. (2002). The impact of three strikes: A sociological perspective. Law and Society Review University of California Santa Barbara, pp. 1, 17–28.

Last Completed Projects