Informative Research

Napoleon 2

Should the three strike laws be repealed?

By:

Emily Napoleon

Eng 102

Prof Waters

April 13, 2026

Informative Research Paper

Outline

Main Idea Statement: While some citizens support three-strike laws for imposing harsher penalties on repeat offenders, others argue in favor of revising or abolishing these laws due to concerns that have been raised on their effectiveness, fairness, and the impact on the criminal justice system.

I. Introduction paragraph: The Criminal Justice System is an evolving division of government that is charged with maintaining public safety, enforcing laws, and delivering justice through fair and equal legal proceedings.

a. In the 1990’s a wave of tough-on-crime ideology took over the political world with the goal of reducing crime through stricter sentencing policies.

i. Background - The first three-strike laws were passed in 1993 allowing 25 years to life sentences upon third felony convictions. The laws were designed with the intent of preventing recidivism by focusing on citizens with previous violent or serious felony convictions.

b. Introducing current three strike laws – While this movement has remained a hot topic, many states have refined these laws to limit life sentences to only serious and violent third offenses.

i. Pros - The three-strike laws promote community safety, justice for victims and a deterrent effect on crime.

ii. Cons - However critics of these laws are concerned about disproportionate sentencing for non-violent crimes, the increase of prisons costs and …

c. Main Idea statement –

i. While some citizens support three-strike laws for imposing harsher penalties on repeat offenders, others argue in favor of revising or abolishing these laws due to concerns that have been raised on their effectiveness, fairness and the impact on the criminal justice system.

II. General History – This controversy gained traction as the “Tough on Crime” political framework and was the breeding ground for the three-strikes laws.

a. In the 1990s, a common public concern was the rising crime rates, which created political pressure for tougher sentencing laws. (Harvard magazine)

i. The public concern shifted the laws towards targeting repeat offenders by increasing penalties after a third felony was committed.

ii. Policy goal was deterrence and long-term incarceration.

b. In California specifically, the three strike laws were formally passed in 1994 through legislation and voter approval. (Kieso)

i. The law allowed sentences of 25 years to life after a third felony conviction.

ii. The law was broad in what felonies this new minimum applied to, including non-violent crimes, and left the prosecutor power to decide.

c. High profile violent crimes gained the attention of the public eye, playing a major role in political support for stricter sentencing policies.

i. Cases like the murder of Kimber Reynolds and Polly Klass gained national attention.

ii. These events created an emotional response and urgency for stricter laws.

d. Political pressure and public opinion led to rapid adoption of the three-strike laws across multiple states. (CQ Researcher).

i. Many states started passing similar laws during the 1990s.

ii. The movement became part of the “tough-on-crime” era.

III. Stakeholders - The issue of the three-strikes laws involves multiple stakeholders with varying interest.

a. There are several parties directly involved in the implementation and impact of the three-strike laws.

i. Prosecutors and law enforcement officials hold the responsibility of enforcing these laws and ensure sentencing is considered constitutional, as these sentences are used to sentence future repeat offenders.

ii. The repeat offenders sentenced under these laws are directly affected by the length and severity of the punishment.

iii. The offender’s family members are also affected by these sentences.

b. There are also indirect stakeholders affected by these laws.

i. Taxpayer dollars are responsible for funding state prisons and prison costs have continuously been rising as longer prison sentences rapidly increased.

ii. Local communities are impacted by public safety in their local areas.

iii. Policy makers and legislators directly create and revise the sentencing laws while considering public opinion and crime trends.

IV. Supporting Side - Tough on crime supporters generally argue the prioritization of public safety through strict law enforcement with mandatory minimums in hopes that this deters future crime. (Bring in two supporting sources) (review stakeholder effect)

a. The three-strike laws trigger mandatory minimums that help remove repeat offenders from society.

i. Supporters argue that the removal of offenders sentences under three-strike minimums reduces the risk of future crimes being committed.

ii. Commonly a preference for punishment over rehabilitation is seen and this is how mandatory minimums grew to 25 years to life with no early parole.

b. Supporters claim the laws create a deterrent effect in their communities.

i. Fear of harsher punishment discourages repeat offenses and encourages individuals to avoid committing future crimes.

c. Another supporting belief amongst citizens that are pro tough-on-crime is the justice and accountability these laws provide to victims.

i. Mandatory minimums ensure offender are held accountable for their actions and that this sentencing is consistent in all cases.

V. Opposing side – Critics of the three-strike laws argue that these laws have led to disproportionate sentencing. (review stakeholder effect)

a. Non-violent crimes have resulted in life sentences, and the community is concerned if the punishment is fitting the crime.

i. When a third nonviolent or serious offense triggers mandatory minimums the eight amendment is often referenced.

ii. Critics also point out research (add paraphrase or summary) that three strike laws lead to disproportionate sentencing.

iii. Add 2 examples – stolen golf clubs and DVDs (bring in “where is the strike zone”)

b. Critics highlight financial and systematic concerns that the mandatory minimum style of sentencing has brought upon prison systems in the last two decades.

i. Add data on financial strain – increased prison cost

ii. psychologists leaving prisons and shortage of staff info

iii. Overcrowded prison systems (need to find source for here)

c. The effectiveness of mandatory minimums is also in question.

i. There is limited evidence that supports a trend of crime reduction since these minimums have gone into effect.

ii. When reviewing any downward trend, there are also other factors that may be influencing the decline of crime rates. (add)

VI. What is at stake - The outcomes of this issue may influence not only incarceration rates but also sentencing policy within the criminal justice system.

a. The future of sentencing policy is at stake, while reviewing data within and around the three-strike minimums and tough-on-crime policy is slow to change.

i. If these laws see no change, our prison systems will remain strained and…

ii. The laws within the judicial system build off each other, the future of criminal justice policies will be affected whether the laws are revised or remain the same.

iii. What could that look like?

b. Economically the current system will be x strain if current practices stay in place.

i. The cost of long-term incarceration (finish reading downsizing prisons chapter)

ii. The financial burden on the taxpayer’s dollar.

c. What are the social and ethical concerns if the laws change or remain as is?

i. Fairness in sentencing (Jim Freeman-book)

ii. Discuss the balance between public safety and justice.

VII. Conclusion paragraph – The debate over the three-strike laws continues to be a major issue within the criminal justice system.

a. These laws were created during the “tough-on-crime” era with the goal of reducing repeat offenses through harsher sentencing.

i. Over time, they have remained controversial due to their long-term impacts.

b. Ther are strong arguments on both sides of the issue.

i. Supporters believe these laws improve public safety, create deterrence and provide justice for victims.

ii. Critics argue that the laws have led to unfair sentencing, an increase in prison costs, and limited effectiveness in reducing crime.

c. The outcomes of this issue have significant effects on the criminal justice system and our communities and society.

i. Decisions around these laws will influence future sentencing policies and incarceration rates.

ii. The balance between both arguments is public safety and fairness

d. As this issue continues to be discussed and reviewed, the topic itself remains important in shaping the future for criminal justice policies.