NCJ Number
194796
Journal
Punishment & Society Volume: 4 Issue: 2 Dated: April 2002 Pages: 237-252
Date Published
April 2002
Length
16 pages
Annotation
This article examined the origin, impact and effects of the Three Strikes law through a review of the study Punishment and Democracy by Zimring, Hawkins, and Kamin (ZHK)published in 2001.
Abstract
The research study, Punishment and Democracy by Franklin Zimring, Gordon Hawkins, and Sam Kamin published in 2001 offered an account of the origins of the Three Strikes law which originated in 1994 in California, as well as an analysis of what its effects had on crime, court caseloads, and prison populations. This article presented this study along with additional research facts, support and criticisms, and study limitations interjected throughout. The Three Strikes law instituted throughout the United States requires that anyone convicted of a felony with a single prior conviction for a serious or violent crime receive a double sentence with no release before 80 percent of their sentence has been served. The effects of the Three Strikes law since its adoption and based on many studies have included: (1) the rate of decline for felonies after the law’s adoption was not significantly different from the rate before; (2) the percentage of defendants sentenced under the law has not been as large as expected; (3) an increase in prison populations; and (4) the imprisonment of minor offenders who pose a small risk to the community. The ZHK study argues that the law was a product of democracy. In addition, the study suggests that public outrage towards criminal can be disproportionate to the harm they do and the sentences imposed and that legislative determination of sentences allows for too much public influence. The Three Strikes law is seen as a product of democracy, discretionary justice, public hostility toward criminals, and the relationship between punishment and democracy. References