Between states, there is great diversity in how these laws are implemented – either in the definition of a “strike” or in the number of strikes required. South Carolina, for example, has two strikes for “most serious offenses.” Another study found that three-shot laws deter criminals from committing offences for fear of life imprisonment. While this discourages crime and helps reduce crime rates, laws can encourage offenders already convicted to commit more serious crimes. The author of the study argues that this is because under these laws, offenders realize that they could face a long prison sentence for their next crime and therefore have little to lose by committing serious crimes instead of minor crimes. With these results, the study assesses both the advantages and disadvantages of the law. [40] In early June 2018, an attempt by the Labour-led coalition government to repeal the Sentencing and Parole Act was blocked by Labor`s supporting partner, New Zealand First, and opposition parties National and ACT. NZ First had opposed the repeal of the Three Strikes Act, which prompted Justice Minister Andrew Little to abandon the attempt. [46] [47] [48] On November 11, 2021, Justice Minister Kris Faafoi announced the repeal of the law. [49] Many states have three strike laws, also known as the three-strike rule. These laws impose harsher sentences on people who have been convicted three times for certain crimes.
In most cases, the penalty for the third conviction is a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment. Three-shot laws can be considered controversial and it`s common for states to repeal them. Some states have amended them to apply only to certain serious crimes (Delaware) or to increase the number of strikes allowed to 4 (Maryland). In 2010, New Zealand passed a similar Sentencing and Parole Reform Act 2010. [42] The bill was supported by Judith Collins, Minister of Police and Prison Services in the ruling National Party. It was adopted by the National and ACT parties, but was rejected by the opposition Labour Party and the Greens, as well as the National`s supporting partner, the Māori Party. [43] While the Sentencing and Parole Act was supported by conservative groups such as the Sensible Sentencing Trust, critics attacked the law for encouraging criminal populism and disproportionately targeting the Maori community. [44] [45] For example, a defendant was convicted of stealing $150 worth of videotapes from two California department stores. The defendant had a criminal record, and under California`s three-shot law, the judge sentenced him to 50 years in prison for stealing the videotapes.
The defendant challenged his conviction before the United States Supreme Court in Lockyer v. Andrade (2003), but the court upheld the constitutionality of the law, finding that it did not violate the “principle of gross disproportionality.” The law also explicitly excludes certain crimes, such as armed robbery or arson, that do not pose a danger to human life. In these cases, however, the onus is on the accused to prove that the offences did not involve threats of use of a dangerous weapon and that there was no threat of death or bodily harm. In other words, they can be strikes, unless a defendant proves otherwise. As mentioned earlier, a large number of states have passed three strike laws for repeat offenders. Many of these states have differences in the Three-Strike Act. These variations may include: Prosecutors have also sometimes circumvented three-shot laws by treating arrests as probation violations rather than new offenses, or charging misdemeanors when charges of a felony would have been legally justified. It is also possible that witnesses refuse to testify and jurors refuse to convict if they want to prevent an accused from being sentenced to life. This may lead to different sanctions and run counter to the objective of uniform treatment of third-party offenders. The three strike laws have also been criticized for imposing disproportionate sentences and focusing too much on street crime rather than white-collar crime. [18] Another study found that arrest rates in California were up to 20% lower for the group of offenders convicted of two-shot crimes than for those convicted of one-shot eligible offenses. The study concluded that the three-hit policy discourages repeat offenders from committing crimes.
California saw a decline in criminal activity “Stolzenberg and D`Alessio found that serious crime in California`s 10 largest cities decreased by 15% overall in the 3 years following the intervention.” [37] Twenty-eight states have some form of “three-shot” law. A person charged under these laws is referred to as a “repeat offender” in some states (notably Connecticut and Kansas), while Missouri uses the single term “former and repeat offender.” In most jurisdictions, only criminal offences are considered serious crimes. The California Three-Shot Penal Code was originally enacted in 1994. The essence of the Three Strikes Act was to require that an accused convicted of a new crime after a previous conviction for a serious crime be sentenced to imprisonment twice as long as the usual time allotted for the crime. If the accused was convicted of a crime involving two or more previous beatings, the law provided for a prison sentence of at least 25 years to life imprisonment. Most people hear 3 hits and you think of baseball. However, these are laws that say three crimes, and you are out of society. States began implementing these laws in the 1990s in response to concerns that habitual violent offenders were being released too quickly from prison and back on the streets.
Three-shot legislation was cited as an example of the McDonaldization of punishment, where criminological and criminal interest shifted from retaliation and treatment tailored to each offender to controlling high-risk groups based on aggregations and statistical averages. A three-shot system makes it possible to uniformly punish criminals of a given class (i.e., offenders three times) in a manner analogous to how a fast food restaurant achieves uniformity of its product. [18] In addition, the three strike laws vary considerably from state to state. These laws provide very severe penalties for repeat offenders. A lawyer can review the facts of your case, advise you on the laws that apply to you, and represent you in court proceedings. The Three Strikes Act significantly increases prison sentences for those convicted of a crime and already convicted of two or more serious crimes, and limits the ability of these offenders to receive a sentence other than life imprisonment. Prior to this change, any conviction for a felony triggered mandatory punishment if the defendant had already received 2 blows. The amendment also retroactively enacted the law, allowing defendants previously convicted of nonviolent or non-serious crimes the opportunity to self-convict on their third strike. A study by Robert Parker, director of the Presley Center for Crime and Justice Studies at UC Riverside, found that violent crime began to decline nearly two years before California`s Three Strikes Act in 1994. The study argues that the decline in crime is linked to the decline in alcohol consumption and unemployment. [38] The Tackling Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act, 1994 is a federal statute passed in 1994 that provides a definition of the Three Strikes Act for federal legislation. If an accused is convicted of three serious crimes or drug-related crimes, they are sentenced to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole.
The exact application of the three-shot laws varies greatly from state to state, but the laws provide for life sentences of at least 25 years on their third strike.