SuperCitizen
civic os · v1.0

Three-strikes laws impose sharply enhanced sentences — often 25 years to life — on defendants convicted of a third qualifying felony. The federal government and roughly half of states have some version. California's was the most expansive and best-known; voters narrowed it in 2012 to require the third strike to be a serious or violent felony.

Supporters argue the laws incapacitate the small share of offenders responsible for a large share of serious crime, and deter repeat offending. Critics argue the laws have produced grossly disproportionate sentences (e.g., life sentences for low-level third offenses), driven prison populations and costs sharply upward, and produced little measurable deterrent effect.

Reform efforts have generally narrowed which prior convictions count, restricted the third strike to serious or violent offenses, or added judicial discretion to depart from mandatory sentences.

Spectrum of framings

How adherents on each side of the conventional left / center / right spectrum frame this issue — written so each camp would recognize the framing as charitable.

left

Most progressives oppose three-strikes laws as drivers of mass incarceration and disproportionate sentencing, favoring repeal or narrow violent-felony limits.

center

Centrists generally support narrowing three-strikes to violent or serious felonies and restoring judicial discretion, while keeping enhanced penalties for repeat violent offenders.

right

Conservatives are split. Tough-on-crime conservatives support three-strikes for incapacitation; libertarian and small-government conservatives have joined reform coalitions citing cost and proportionality.

Perspectives

Each perspective is presented in terms its advocates would recognize, with the concerns they treat as paramount. None is endorsed.

  • Incapacitation advocates

    A small minority of offenders commit a large share of serious crime. Mandatory enhanced sentences keep career criminals off the street and protect public safety. Predictable sentences also reduce judicial inconsistency.

    • Public safety from career offenders
    • Sentencing consistency and predictability
    • Deterrence of repeat offending
  • Proportionality reformers

    Three-strikes laws have produced life sentences for minor third offenses, driving prison populations and budgets upward without commensurate public-safety gains. Sentences should fit the current offense, with judicial discretion restored.

    • Disproportionate sentences for minor third offenses
    • Prison costs and overcrowding
    • Loss of judicial discretion
Discuss this issue with the Coach →