The three-strikes law is considered as the antidote to career offenders. According to the provisions of this law, a person who has been convicted of the third instance of a misdemeanor, which is of a similar nature to the initial misdemeanors, will be handed a more punitive punishment or verdict (Walsh, 2007). However, the law has been surrounded by debate ever since its inception in the year 1993. Even though it has been domesticated by more states, the debate regarding it has not diminished. The law has split scholars with some supporting it while others supporting it. The three-strikes laws have certain advantages, but it has led to additional expenses to our justice system, overpopulation in prison cells, and a decline in the number of people who are willing to serve as law enforcers hence the law is not an effective way of dissuading crime.
Contrary to what proponents of the law say, the three strikes law increases the rates of crime. The reason for this is that the offenders who may be convicted the third time normally behave in manners that they may not countenance because of the severe threat of being convicted minus parole. Experts concur that this behavior may be influenced by the belief that they have nothing to lose or even the struggles to hide the crime (Domanick, 2004). A study established that the three strikes law increases rates of homicides by between 10-12 percent in the short term, something that is impossible to happen minus the law. In the long-term, the researchers forecast an increase in the region of between 23-29 percent that denotes violent crimes will attract an extra 0.15 percent homicide cases.
References
Domanick, J. (2004). Cruel justice: Three strikes and the politics of crime in America’s golden state. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Walsh, J. E. (2007). Three strikes laws. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.