The Effectivity Of Three Strikes Law

1510 WordsApr 5, 20167 Pages
Habitual offender laws or as it is known, the three strikes law is hated by most people and even ex-president Bill Clinton regrets signing this law. This law is more complex than simple. Each state has its own version of this law, with California being the strictest by implementing this law on criminals with non-violent felonies (Kieso). The effectivity of three strikes law has been questioned thousands of times because this law has the chance to ruin peoples’ lives who could have changed their paths; however, it can also lock up those who will never change. Like every law, the three strikes law is not perfect and it might lead to extreme results like in the case of Persistent Phellon. There is evidence that these laws work in some cases and not in others. There is a study where in California violent crimes have decreased by 38 percent and saved billions of dollars; however, there is another study which says the opposite. Counties in California with heavy enforce of the law saw fewer changes than the ones that were less strict (Wood). This means that it is hard to prove or disprove if the law is working. Since the counties with less used of the law saw a decline in people being charged than counties with heavy use of the law, counties with heavy use of the law should use the law less frequent. There was an obvious change since the law was implemented, but it cannot be confirmed that this law was the one which helped crime drop. The tables above show how much violent crimes

More about The Effectivity Of Three Strikes Law

Open Document