www.justicepolicy.org/article.php?id=396
A decade after it was enacted, California's three-strikes sentencing law has had little impact on violent crime while costing taxpayers $8 billio n to imprison tens of thousands of felons, most of them for nonviolent o ffenses, according to a study released today. Three-strikes inmates in California now number more than 42,000 one-fourt h of the state's prison population, according to the study. The law doubles the sentence for an ex-felon convicted of a second felony . Someone with two prior convictions for violent or serious crimes, if c onvicted of a third felony of any type, can be sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. The three-strikes law "has been the most effective criminal justice initi ative in the history of California," said former Secretary of State Bill Jones, the law's coauthor. A frequent critic of California's three-strikes law also challenged the n ew report's conclusion on costs. "I don't think it has cost us $8 billio n or anything close to that yet," said UC Berkeley law professor Frank Z imring. But Zimring said backers of the law have greatly exaggerated its deterren t effect. "It has had a very small impact on crime," Zimring said. And third-strike penalties, he said, "are sort of grossly disproportionat e to the crime." The new report offered a number of provocative findings that include the following: Nearly 65% of those convicted of second or third strikes were serving t ime in prison for nonviolent crimes. They included 672 third-strikers se rving 25 years to life in prison for drug possession a number that was g reater than the number of third-strikers in prison for second-degree mur der, assault with a deadly weapon and rape combined. While only two ex-felons were serving 25 years to life for petty theft a decade ago, that number soared to 354 by last September. The six largest California counties using three strikes most frequently had lower decreases in crime rates than the six that used the law less often. Similarly, states that did not have three-strikes laws had lower average rates of violent crime and larger average drops in violent crime than the states with the tough sentencing law. For example, New York, w hich does not have a three-strikes law, had much larger drops in total c rime and violent crime than California. "What our studies show is that California's three-strikes law costs too m uch, does too little and targets the wrong people. And particularly in t hese times of fiscal crisis in the state, California cannot afford to do that," said Vincent Schiraldi, coauthor of the study and executive dire ctor of the Justice Policy Institute, a left-leaning research and public policy organization. Prosecutors in California's 58 counties have discretion in how and when t o apply the three-strikes law. Steve Cooley, a Republican, has declin ed to prosecute most nonviolent offenses and lesser drug charges as thir d strikes. That policy is in sharp contrast to that of Cooley's predecessor, who sou ght a life sentence in 1995 for an ex-convict accused of stealing a slic e of pizza. Los Angeles County generates about 40% of all three-strikes cases in the state, and Cooley's policies are similar to those followed in San Franci sco and Alameda counties. Statewide, since a peak in 1996, the number of life sentences for third s trikes has dropped significantly. Authorities attribute that decline to greater selectivity by prosecutors and a general drop in crime and to many repeat offenders' being already behind bars on third-strike convictions. The Justice Policy Institute report acknowledged that the cost of three s trikes had been nowhere near as high as some originally predicted. And t hat point was underscored by former Secretary of State Jones. "Ten years ago, there were predictions that the prison population would d ouble because of three strikes and that we would need to build 20 new pr isons," Jones said. We ha ven't had to build one new prison since three strikes became law." Most significant, Jones said, the decline in crime over the past decade h as saved taxpayers billions of dollars in arresting, prosecuting and imp risoning criminals. "But we have calcula ted that it saved the state more than $28 billion through savings in ins urance and the costs of catching and re-catching the same people." Replicating research done for a 1996 study commissioned by the US Justi ce Department's National Institute of Justice, the Justice Policy Instit ute estimated that, as of last September, the three-strike prisoners add ed to the state's penal system since March 1994 had or would cost Califo rnia an additional $81 billion to incarcerate. And more than half that amount about $47 billion is directly attributabl e to longer prison terms for those convicted of nonviolent crimes, the r eport states. The researchers conclude that state officials should reexamine both the c osts and criminal justice consequences of the law so they can decide whe ther it should be amended or abolished. Given the variety of other factors, including the economy, that have cont ributed to the past decade's decline in crime, Jack Riley, director of R and's Public Safety and Justice Program, agreed that a new look at the s tate's three-strikes law was warranted. "If there was ever a place where three strikes was going to work, it was California because the California version of the law was broad in terms of the felonies it covers and deep because it has the potential to cover an awful lot of people," Riley said. "But I don't think you can call three strikes a clear home run in terms o f cost-effectiveness," Riley said. "It may have had an effect on the mar gins of the crime rate. But given that it is not a clear home run, you h ave to ask whether there are better ways to spend those public resources ."
|
http://csua.com/feed/