Introduction to California Three Strikes Law
California’s Three Strikes law is a criminal statute for repeat felony offenders. Adopted in 1994 as part of Proposition 184, California’s Three-Strikes Law is the most severe three-strikes law in the United States.
Famous cases resulting from the Three Strikes Law have involved a minor non-violent conviction (shoplifting) for a person whose true past criminal convictions involved serious felonies (sex offenses, robbery, murder).. While there have been hundreds of convictions under the Three Strikes law since 1994, those cases occur relatively infrequently when compared to the number of felony convictions in California each year.
The intent of California’s Three Strikes Law was to reduce repeat offenses dramatically and hence , dramatically reduce crime. Supporters of the law at the time believed that it would make criminals less likely to commit future crimes if they realized that their past repeated criminal conduct might result in life imprisonment. Opponents of the law felt that such a harsh penalty was not appropriate for people who had committed non-violent crimes and were drug or alcohol addicted, nor for those who had participated in their crimes because of mental health issues.
The original law mandated that a defendant who had two prior felony convictions of violent crimes face a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for any subsequent serious criminal offense. Subsequent amendments to the law expanded the definition of harsh, violent crimes (e.g. assault, robbery, automobile theft with a weapon, and assault with a deadly weapon), but also added drug- and alcohol-related crimes as offenses covered by the Three Strikes Law. As a result, persons convicted under these circumstances could be sentenced to life in prison after having been convicted of a non-violent felony under specified conditions.
Current State of California Three Strikes Law
The short answer is – yes. California’s Three Strikes Law is still in effect if the crime was committed after November 4, 2012. Since voters passed Proposition 36 on November 6, 2012, there have been changes made to the Three Strikes Law that affect those who are charged after the passage date. While many non-violent crimes will be eligible for resentencing, those serving time under a three strikes sentence for a violent crime must serve 25 years before being eligible for resentencing.
For any serious or violent offenses that occurred before Proposition 36 was passed, offenders sentenced under the old three strikes law will not be eligible for resentencing. This means that those offenders will serve 25 years before being eligible for resentencing. Those who have pleaded guilty to a non-violent offense before the passage of Proposition 36 and received a three strikes sentence will be eligible for resentencing if they have served at least five years in prison. In these cases, the new sentence will be 1/3 the usual time for the crime committed. If resentenced, the offender will not have to serve the previous sentence plus 25 years.
It’s important to note that most of these resentencings can only occur at the request of the inmate in question. But anyone sentenced under the three strikes law should contact an experienced Orange County criminal defense attorney to review the possibility of being resentenced under the revised Three Strikes Law.
Effects of the Law on California Judicial System
The Three Strikes Law has had a significant impact on California’s justice system and its handling of repeat offenders. One of the most notable effects has been the substantial increase in the state’s prison population since the law took effect, resulting in high costs for the state to manage, house, and provide medical care to inmates. As a result, prisons are overcrowded and a lack of sufficient health and mental health care for inmates has led to litigation over cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The law has also had a profound impact on individual inmates sentenced to 25 years-to-life in prison for non-violent crimes, effectively removing them from society for decades or even their entire lives while increasing recidivism rates, according to some studies. Whether these inmates are a danger to society also remains a topic of debate. Studies have shown that only about 7-11 percent of three-strikers in California release committed a new crime immediately after their release and that non-strikers and one-strikers have a 63% and 70% recidivism rate, respectively, compared to 28% and 62% recidivism rates for two- and three-strikers.
According to the Center for Crime Statistics, the 2011 passage of Proposition 36, a ballot initiative that amended the Three Strikes Law, has largely reduced the number of people being sentenced to life terms. However, the amended law still allows for life sentences for third-strikers who are convicted of non-violent crimes if that person was also convicted as a second striker for violent crimes on a prior occasion. The amendment also allows for the return to court of anyone previously sentenced to life in prison under the old Three Strikes Law if that person is non-violent and has already served his or her time in prison.
Controversies Surrounding the California Three Strikes Law
The Three Strikes Law has been the subject of much debate since its inception. Supporters argue that the law keeps repeat violent offenders off the streets and enhances public safety. In the wake of high-profile crimes committed by three-strikers, including the murder of shooting victim Kimber Reynolds by David Scott Lamont, the proponents argue that the law prevents future tragedies. Opponents contend that the law unfairly punishes a small number of offenders with sentences out of proportion with their current offense. This may lead to prison overcrowding and increased costs to the California taxpayers. Earlier debates about the law have centered on sentences for non-violent felonies, but opponents now criticize the fact that a conviction of any felony can trigger a life sentence for a person with two prior strike convictions, even if the secondary conviction had nothing to do with the original strike.
Amendments and Reforms to California Three Strikes Law
In light of the controversies surrounding the law, lawmakers have sought several ways to clarify, limit, or eliminate the Three Strikes Law. One of those ways was Proposition 36, which amended the law in November of 2012.
In essence, Proposition 36 meant that non-violent third strikes would no longer be penalized with a life sentence, but rather a sentence of twice the maximum prison term for the underlying crime. Additionally, Proposition 36 mandated that individuals sentenced under the previous version of the law could petition to have their sentences modified if their third strike was a non-violent offense . In the case of a violent offense, the court must grant a petition unless doing so would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society. Such petitions must be filed by the state prosecution, or the person in custody can appeal to the attorney general.
Even so, as with other reforms and amendments, Proposition 36 did not eliminate the controversy surrounding the law. In fact, many believe that it simply serves to further imprison individuals who would not otherwise be imprisoned as the result of lengthy incarceration periods.
Analysis of Similar Laws in Other Jurisdictions
California’s Three Strikes law has been an outlier amongst the states that have similar legislative schemes. When it first passed, only a handful of states across the country had implemented their own versions of Three Strikes laws. Ten years after its passage, in 2004, roughly half of the U.S. states had some form of Three Strikes legislation on the books. Between 2012 and 2018, very few legislative changes occurred. Only six more states passed Three Strikes laws, and only three that did saw their implementation processes take effect.
By far, the most similar law to California’s was the version passed in Florida. Though not as tough as California’s, Florida’s law took a similar hardline approach to habitual offenders. Hb 529, which passed in 1999, allowed for a third felony charge to bring a life sentence if the specific offenses were listed in the law: sexual battery by a deadly weapon, armed burglary, aggravated assault or battery, lewd conduct or sexual performance of a child, or "any other enumerated [felony] offense committed while the defendant was serving a prison sentence either for that capital offense or for a prior felony which was also a capital offense." There were exemptions for impracticalities related to the death penalty, such as the incapacitated defendant.
Vermont, as always, takes a unique approach to many issues of public policy and law. While the Vermont Constitution does not allow for habitual offender legislation, Vermonters overwhelmingly passed HB 222 in 2006, extending greater sentencing power to the judicial branch both sentences. Vermont’s law asks the court to use discretion in sentencing repeated offenders. The language found in the statute does not explicitly provide sentencing enhancements but lists non-aggravated felony sentences to extend sentences. The law states that the court "may increase the penalty for the commission of an offense by the maximum term to a term not to exceed four years, if the defendant has previously been convicted of two or more crimes in one or more courts if the crimes for which the defendant is being sentenced were committed after his or her third conviction." This discretionary approach to habitual offender sentencing has seen very limited ongoing impact in the state, with between 2008 and 2015 only 18 defendants being charged under this new law.
Nine other states passed habitual offender legislation at some point, but four of those have since been repealed. This left five states with a version of a Three Strikes law: Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Washington. In Colorado, habitual offenders may be sentenced to twice the maximum penalty for lesser crimes, while class 5 and 6 felonies are without any sentencing enhancements. Montana’s law, passed via ballot initiative in 2006, allows for a life sentence without parole for repeat offenders convicted of property offenses, or a life without parole sentence for offenses that are considered to be a danger to human life. On the other hand, New Mexico’s law, passed in 2001, applies only to offenders of only violent crimes, and convictions under murder, manslaughter, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, aggravated kidnapping, human trafficking, first degree criminal sexual penetration, criminal sexual contact of a minor in the second degree, and armed robbery carry a life sentence after third conviction. Washington, like California, has a third strike penalty for offenses categorized as class A felonies. Each of these states’ schemes differ in important ways that are highly relevant when comparing them to California’s Three Strikes law.
Future of the California Three Strikes Law
The evolution of the Three Strikes law continues, with amendments being passed to conform to new legislation and legal interpretations. Whether the current law becomes tougher or more lenient in the coming years will likely depend on the political climate, public opinion, and the ongoing advocacy efforts of organizations like the Third Strike Justice Project and Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errant Minors. Ongoing legislative efforts to reform or abolish the current Three Strikes law could change how it is applied, including the possibility of limiting sentences to non-violent third-strike offenses or placing additional scrutiny on the types of second and third offenses that qualify as strikes. Changes in public opinion regarding the Three Strikes law could also impact its future. As the state’s correctional system faces pressure to reduce overcrowding and address concerns of rehabilitation over retribution , it is possible that lawmakers may be less inclined to pass harsher laws that increase the prison population. Additionally, advocacy groups over the years have sought to modify the Three Strikes law, bringing in a variety of voices to argue for changing the law to reflect what they consider to be its intended purpose. Some suggest imposing more stringent criteria for what constitutes a second or third strike, while others seek a repeal of the law altogether. How these groups choose to engage and mobilize the public could influence whether or not reform takes place. The future of California’s Three Strikes law will likely involve complex considerations related to public opinion, correctional policy, and the articulated objectives of lawmakers. Any changes to the current structure are likely to be debated by lawmakers, advocacy groups, and citizens alike.