Do "Three Strikes" Laws Cause Crime?

First, some background on why I decided to start a thread on this topic. In responding to another article, How Two People Researching A TV Show Got in a Gunfight, fellow FReeper Don W made a comment in this post that, to put it mildly, raised an eyebrow:

"Then there's the 3 strikes thing: Would this guy have drawn and fired at the cops had the fear of hard time not been there? It seems to show that mandatory sentencing is counter-productive, unless you like firefights in the streets."

My response was rather strongly worded, and from there a "passionate debate" (i.e., not quite a flame war) ensued. In the discussion process, I found myself elaborating on my objection to the idea that "three strikes" laws somehow cause crime, and think the debate of this specific topic on moral grounds is worthy of pursuit.

While I usually prefer not to take a discussion off of its original thread (or appear to be chest-thumping in doing so), I believe this topic, which is somewhat tangential from the topic of the original article, stands on its own. And although there is no shortage of debate or threads on "three strikes" laws, I think the specific issue of "Do 'Three Strikes' Laws Cause Crime?" is germane to the crime, culture and government discussion categories.

Having said all this, and with apologies for context and stridency, here is an excerpt from my latest post on the topic, made in response to a post by Eagle Eye, which I think reasonably outlines the nature of the debate on this issue:

Laws no more cause crime than forks cause obesity, however, laws can re-define actions to make a once legal action illegal.

To the extent you hold the opinion that laws don't cause crime, I agree with you. And that's the crux of my strong disagreement with Don W's reaction to this article:

"Would this guy have drawn and fired at the cops had the fear of hard time not been there?"

This sort of speculation, followed by the conclusion that "mandatory sentencing is counter-productive, unless you like firefights in the streets", obviously bothers me a great deal.

Why? Because it amounts to blaming laws for violent crime. I don't buy that for a second, and consider such assertions tremendously hurtful to the cause of fighting crime.

When people deliberately choose to do harm to others, it is NOT the fault of the law.

First of all, I think that we agree that we should never need Three Strike laws, that repeat felons should not be on the streets. In order for a person to be CONVICTED of even two felonies, they will probably have participated in dozens and probably have been arested for several prior acts that either resulted in lesser pleas or straight releases.

I'm with you that "three strikes" laws are, at best, a reaction to a combination of poorly written laws and, consequently, poor results in court. Blaming judges for bad legislation, however, is like blaming the IRS for the tax code. The responsibility for problems with law lies squarely with lawmakers.

Look at states where "three strikes" laws are so popular, and you'll find criminal codes, such as in California, that routinely specify sentences that are unreasonably light for many violent crimes. California courts operate under California law. So do California parole boards. That is how California ends up with so many violent repeat felons running around free.

By contrast, committing these same violent felonies in neighboring Nevada leads to a very different outcome: long stretches in a state prison out in the middle of the desert with no parole. And criminals know this. Of course, there is still plenty of violent crime in Nevada, but much less of it committed by repeat offenders -- and a lot of it is "imported" from out of state (at any given time, Nevada has a huge number of non-Nevadans within its borders, many drawn here by the idea of "easy money". Crime follows).

The difference between Nevada and California lies not so much in the courts, but on the laws under which they operate. If rulings are "bad" (say, convicted first-degree murderers receiving 2-year sentences) simply because judges and juries exercise discretionary authority under existing laws, then the laws can be changed to correct these problems.

But the bottom line on "three strikes" laws is that, regardless of the motivations behind them, they are still laws, and exist for a reason. We both seem to think that they are a bad way to deal with fundamental problems with the criminal code, but our opinions are merely our opinions. If a state wants to specify an additional penalty for repeat offenses, I see nothing morally, legally or practically wrong with that.

Laws do set penalty ranges, but mandatory sentencing at first appears to be 'checks and balances' in operation, but in reality steals judgment and discretion from judges that need it. Those that take the "we must do something" approach (which usually means passing more meaningless laws) always seem to applaud more and more laws instead of enforcing the ones on the books.

Criminal laws define criminal conduct, and specify penalties for it. Do you know of so much as a single criminal law that does not specify a punishment for breaking it? If you do, I would be very interested in it.

This is were your argument begins to unravel, because it appears to be based on the notion that criminal laws should not specify penalties for breaking them. Am I wrong in observing this? If so, please explain how.

Nevada Revised Statues 200.380 2. A person who commits robbery is guilty of a category B felony and shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 2 years and a maximum term of not more than 15 years.

The statute is not at all ambiguous. If you are found guilty of robbery in Nevada, you WILL serve a term of not less than 2 years. That's a mandatory sentence. Commit robbery in Nevada, regardless of circumstances, and you face two years in the state prison. Not county jail, and not probation.

Meanwhile, the best you can hope for if you are found guilty of first-degree murder is twenty long years of hard time before you even become eligible for parole. But you are far more likely to face death or life without parole. (NRS 200.030)

In both cases, the law specifies minimum, mandatory sentences for committing certain crimes. There is nothing wrong with that.

In this particular case, the criminal was already committing a felony by carrying a firearm. He was probably already invovled in others. He did not know that the cops simply wanted to talk. Would he have immediately opened fire if he didn't feel threatened and cornered? Probably not.

This perspective simply amazes me. You appear to be arguing that this felon, who clearly knew full well that he faced a life sentence for what he was doing, was therefore driven to commit a crime he wouldn't have otherwise committed.

Well guess what? Bank robbers wouldn't shoot at police or civilians -- or even need weapons at all -- if bank robbery weren't illegal. So, by this incredibly specious logic, bank robbery -- or any crime that may "lead" criminals to "commit violent acts" because they face harsh penalties -- should be legal. Breathtaking!

No, the laws did not "cause" he criminal activity, however they do escalate the amount of resistance the police are likely to encounter upon contact. And quite often, as in this case, the cops may not realize that they are encountering a two-time loser that will go ballistic without warning because they fear going back to prison more than they fear losing their lives.

Again, I marvel at the implications of this statement. This is what you think the problem is? That the law specifies harsh punishments for serious crimes? Do you honestly believe this?

Please, help me to find sound reasoning in this argument, because I am unable to. I can see how you might get this mistaken idea, but I can't see how you could promote it if you had actually thought it through. I don't mean for this to sound insulting; I find this genuinely baffling.

Are we to not have harsh punishments for criminal behavior? Are harsh punishments the problem? I invite you to make your case, but please understand that I'll have a very hard time accepting this premise.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.