NCJ Number
183075
Editor(s)
Richard C. Monk
Date Published
1998
Length
20 pages
Annotation
The senior editor of Reader's Digest argues that a very small number of juveniles and adults commit the majority of serious crimes and that the main solution is to identify them as early as possible and increase the punishments each time they offend, while a professor argues that three strikes legislation is permeated with negative unanticipated consequences and that such laws are costly, inefficient, and unfair and do little to reduce crime.
Abstract
Traditional approaches to crime include retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation. Current constructions of the crime problem, however, seem to ignore rehabilitation as a goal of incarceration and instead focus on incarceration. The senior editor for Reader's Digest believes that three strikes legislation reflects the increased emphasis on tough criminal justice policies and that such laws are effective in dealing with the violent minority of criminal recidivists who commit most serious crimes. He indicates that most persistent predators are criminal psychopaths, that incarceration is the best way to get them off the streets and to deter others, that the rehabilitation ideal of the juvenile court system leads to costly "coddling" of serious and persistent juvenile offenders, and that punishment and prisons work and are cost-effective. In contrast, the professor analyzes theoretical principles of three strikes legislation, such as efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control, and suggests that such laws can be viewed as part of the "McDonaldization" trend. He believes that three strikes legislation constitute a reaction to a moral panic that has swept the United States since the late 1970's and that negative consequences of the laws are significant. 9 references