Do "Three Strikes" Laws Cause Crime?

How Two People Researching A TV Show Got in a Gunfight ^ | January 15, 2003 | Imal, Don W and Eagle Eye

[Imal]

However, I can see the point this article makes.

I'm not sure you are referring to the article I posted...

[eno_]

I find this debate very interesting. I am anti War on Drugs, but pro three strikes. It seems to me that, while imprefect, three strikes laws take repeat offenders out of circulation while making the odds of three unjust convictions very low.

The statistics on reporting and solution rates for property crime mean that, on average, a three strikes case is actually something like a 27th or 113th strike. Police effectiveness for property crime is piss-poor: Single digit and low double digit solution rates. No DNA sampling at crime scenes, etc. When was the last time you heard of a burglary being solved in your town?

Will there be some terribly unlucky bastards? Sure. And it is a pity we have a system that screws them. But it also screws everyone with low solution rates, low conviction rates, short sentences, etc. Until we get police that can reliably solve burglaries and muggings, three strikes is the best we can do.

[radioman]

Therefore, we should soften the laws so that criminals won't kill us. Is that a fair interpretation?

Hmmm...No. We should have a few strong laws instead of many weak ones.
If you are going to keep releasing dangerous criminals to make room for non violent drug offenders, violent crime will increase. Three strikes has sent harmless people off to crime college, and that's a fact.
Here in Califruitia, we locked up a bicycle theif for life while releasing a killer.

When the state becomes the protector of public safety, we lose freedom and safety.
We don't need loophole laws to protect us from predators. We need men who are willing to do what a man has gotta do.

The death penalty was not put in place to punish or prevent. The death penalty is to keep the peace. Lynch mobs had a bad habit of destroying jails.
I think all laws have to be looked at in the same light.

[Wonder Warthog]

"25 years to life for a petty theft is unfair. No judge would give a sentence like that for something as small as stealing a bike. I can easily see how a petty crime could turn violent if the criminal was a 2 striker."

He's not getting the 25 years for "petty theft". He's getting 25 years for proving that he cannot be re-habilitated and is a continuing danger to society.

[Mr. K]

I agree with your point and that is why I like to propose a 'SENTENCE MULTIPLIER' law in stead of 'THREE STRIKES'.

The gist of it is this: for each offense your sentence and/or fine is multiplied by the number of previous offenses. If you are caught speeding twice your fine is twice as much, etc. , athought traffic tickets should be held seperate from misdemeanors or felonies.

If you get caught stealing twice you get double the jail time.

If you are a carreer criminal you done have to worry about 'three stirkes' for petty theft after an armed robbery turning into a life sentence because you would get the sentence for petty teheft (only) multiplied by the number of previous crimes.

If, however, you have a lifetime of misdemeanors, and you then commit a felony- hey- tough luck, it is a sign you are growing worse instead of getting better.

I am open to arguments about problems with this proposal.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

Reasons the three strikes law helps:

1. Less crime will be committed, some of which would have led killings, by those with 2 strikes.

2. No crimes will be committed by those in jail because of the law.

Reason why the law makes thinks worse

3. The incentive to kill in order to get away may be higher in some specific situations.


Personally, I believe 1 and 2 outweigh 3 and there is a net positive effect. Those arguing for 3 need to do more than assert it they need to say why it is so incredibly powerful an incentive that it overcomes 1 and 2.

Point 3 is weak because the probability of being ultimately convicted may be greater if they kill because much more police resources will be devoted to them than if it was a petty crime, and because there are now two crimes police can try to prove rather than one. The probability of being ultimately convicted is as or more important than the sentance.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

Henry Hazlitt the economist talked about the importance of looking at both what is seen and what is unseen. Conventional wisdom often ignores the unseen and comes to the wrong conclusion. The “3 strikes creates incentives to kill” argument is part of the unseen. However, I think some people get caught up in the cuteness of the argument and forget the incentives conventional wisdom acknowledges are still there. I think this is a case of conventional wisdom being right and the cute counterargument being logically valid but insignificant.