Why don't we adopt a '3 strike' rule for repeat offenders?

Question

Prison is meant to be a place where people who have committed crimes can go to pay for the crime(s) they have committed and also be rehabilitated so they can come back again into society.
For persistant offenders, who obviously have no desire for rehabilitation or a life away from crime why don't we give them 3 chances before they are incarserated for the rest of their lives?

I am from the UK.
As regards over crowding of prisons the simple answer is to build more.
I am aware of this system of 3 strikes in the states.
Does it work?
Are you safer as a result and is your crime rate down?

Some very valid points have been raised.
In the UK a crime that has been committed will become spent after I believe 10 years and no longer count against you.
Perhaps this needs to be adopted in the USA, so crimes of the youth need not be punished in later years and common sense prevail.
Also a record of a minor is not taken into consideration once they have reached adulthood.

Answer 1

It doesn't work because

1. Prisons are overcrowded already creating a danger for the staff (who cares about the convicts)

2. Most of the time the third strike is for a relatively minor felony crimes instead of the serious offenses that these laws were intended to handle.

3. It doesn't allow the judge to take into consideration other factors which should affect the actual sentence

4. It is a danger to law enforcement because a person faced with a third strike situation has nothing to lose. They will try to out-run the cop or even hurt or kill the officer because they have nothing else to lose.

Answer 2

We already have something approaching this for serious sexual or violent offences. When an offender commits a crime on a list of specified serious offences, if they have previous of a similar nature and look like they still ose a significant risk, the Court *must* consider an Extended Sentence for Public Protection (longer than the normal custody for the offence), an Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection (the offender will only be released if and when the Parole Board are satisfied they are no longer a risk to the public) or a Life Sentence for Public Protection.

Going down this route for common minor offences, however, would just not be pratical. Yes, we can build more and more prisons, but as country we can't afford to spend £35,000 per year keeping people with three convictions for shoplifting, or driving while disqualified, or benefit fraud in prison for the rest of their lives!! And that's just the amount it actually costs to incarcerate an individual. You'd have to add into that the costs of taking into care all the children who are brought up by single parents who are also criminals.

And you'd have to afford all this without the taxes paid by the large number of repeat offenders who work.

Answer 3

Because of these reasons:

1) Such laws are overly harsh and draconian, effectively breaking with the principle of "punishment to fit the crime". Ex. There is a guy in California serving a life sentence for stealing a slice of pizza.

2) Such laws conflict with the concept of rehabiliation. If you really want to help someone change, sometimes it takes more than two or three efforts, sometimes takes time.

3) People change. The guy who committed a couple of stupid crimes when he was 18, shouldn't have a misdemeanor at age 40 get trumped up to a felony (because of the two earlier crimes) and count as third strike and life sentence.

4) Double jeopardy. Punishing someone more for a third crime because of the existence of two previously punished crimes is, in a sense, like sentencing them again for the first two crimes.

Three Strikes laws were upheld by the Supreme Court a few years ago, but keep in mind it was a 5-4 split (very close).

Personally, I think Three Strikes laws are a real evil in our society and just another attempt by legislators to get around the tried-and-true procedures of judging folks just for their most recent crimes.

My suggestion: Since crimes have variable sentences (ex., say 1 - 10 years for a particular Class C Felony, or something like that), then judges should probably consider lower ends of the range for new offenders, but perhaps hand out the max for repeat offenders.

So if an offender keeps breaking that same law that carries a 1-10 year sentence, then maybe the judge hands out 10 years automatically, each time he sees the defendent convicted in his court room.

That would work, and is better than handing out life sentences for stealing pizza.

Answer 4

Go to Findlaw and search for Solem v. Helm. That will tell you why strict 3 strikes rules do not work. Nearly every state has some sort of recidivist statue, increasing the penalty for each successive crime. However, if someone steals a loaf of bread 3 times, do we put him or her in prison for life?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=463&invol=277

Answer 5

well for one reasn it has been proved to be an unfair way of doing things in the end, it leaves no room for the judge to judge a situation that may be unique or even justfied in the end.

three strikes and your out has failed miserably in the USA. it has put people in Prison for up to life for writting bad checks at the grocery store for food for a total of less than £100.oo. do you still think a law like this would be fair.

Answer 6

I think it probably works a little bit, but not really to the extent that people think it does. Most habitual offenders are way beyond being detered by fear of an enhanced sentence, so all it really does is keep the penitintiary bursting at the seams.

Answer 7

We don't even have a three strike rule to send the B*******'s
to prison in the first place.
How many crimes would they have been caught out on by the time we start talking about three strikes and your away for life? How many people have had their lives wrecked by this time?

Answer 8

I think we need to be careful particularly the way some of our local Councils behave. They would have you imprisoned for life for putting three lavatory roil cardboards in the wrong bin if they got a chance.

Answer 9

One of my concerns with this type of law is if someone didn,t like you they could goad you in so many ways,until you react
You might find yourself locked up for life because you kicked there flowerbed in the heat of the moment Be lucky

Answer 10

We have had 3 strikes and that's enough. 1st postmen, then prison screws and tube workers yesterday. Isn't that enough?