There’s a Catch to Crime-Fighting ‘Three Strikes’ Pitch

Crime, or, more specifically, talking about crime , is now the national political pastime.

To make sure we all understand that, politicians have simplified the crime lingo to that of our other national pastime: in crime now, as in baseball, it’s three strikes and “ Yer outta here! “

Three violent-crime convictions and hit the showers, bud.

The state Assembly has approved five “three strikes” measures, President Clinton has endorsed the concept, and even the presumed bleeding heart liberal governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, supports it.

At first blush, there’s nothing wrong with the three-strikes provision. There’s not much of an argument to be made for why society should be perpetually at risk from proven hard-core criminals. And, strictly as a political ploy, the strikeout strategy is right up there with support of the death penalty for sheer fan appeal.

But will it make much difference? Will we be that much safer?

As an overall crime strategy, it has an inherent defeatist tinge. Before the punishment kicks in, the criminal gets three whacks at victims. Three dead or battered bodies is hardly cause for celebrating a “get-tough” crime provision.

Therein lies the danger for the public. Politicians no doubt see the strikeout as a way to impress the crowd. Used to be they could talk about building more prisons and that would wow the public. Now, the public is saying, “Hey, we built all these prisons and we still don’t feel safe.”

Nowhere was that more strikingly proven than in 1991 in Orange County, a law-and-order outpost if ever there was one.

With Sheriff Brad Gates threatening the public with criminals-on-the-loose because of overcrowded jails and asking for only a half-cent sales tax increase to build a new one, Orange County resoundingly said no. Nobody showed up to vote (one in six registered voters turned out) and three out of every four who did voted against the proposal.

At the time, I suggested that proved that crime was overrated, but other analyses were probably more accurate: namely, that the public wasn’t convinced that government knew how to handle the crime problem.

So, here we are in 1994, and crime heads the list of things Orange County residents are concerned about, according to a poll last summer. Similar concern is voiced from coast to coast.

Is there any more reason today to believe the public trusts government to handle the problem?

Criminologist and UC Irvine assistant professor Brian Vila doubts it. “In general terms, people are discouraged about the conventional approaches to dealing with crime,” he says. “Clinton became the sixth President in a row to declare war on crime and people know that the crime rate goes up and the crime rate goes down, one kind goes up and another kind goes down, and I don’t think people have the perception that government is very effective in dealing with crime. And, in particular, that’s one of the main reasons they haven’t been anxious to build a new jail in Orange County, for instance, or build more prisons.”

With a law enforcement background, including a stint as a Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputy, Vila says he is “no kind of flaming liberal.” But, he says, we’ve got it all wrong when it comes to the crime problem.

“There is a growing body of research that the 5%-6% of the people who commit 50% of the serious crimes were severely damaged early in their lives,” he says. Those problems run the gamut, he says, from prenatal problems to child abuse to growing up in dysfunctional families. “Lots of people survive those same traumas, but a large proportion of people who go on to become our biggest problems do come out of dysfunctional backgrounds,” Vila says.

It’s obvious to Vila that that’s where a large share of money must go. “I think a real key is to think about the life course, to think about prevention not as a thing you do for today or this year, but that you try to effect over the course of an individual’s life.”

Sounds like the old liberal philosophy that lost public support, I suggested.

Vila agrees but said even Great Society goals were too short-term-oriented.

“Over the short term,” Vila says, “we need cops on the street, we need prisons and jails, we need supervision for people on parole and probation, but those are short-term solutions and they don’t do much about the real roots of the problem.”

Vila said politicians underestimate the public’s intelligence on root causes of crime and that leaders of “stature, understanding and guts” could sell a long-term approach.

It will take a sell job, because my reading is that the public thinks we tried that, and it didn’t work. But my reading also is that the public, deep down, isn’t convinced more jails and prisons are the answer either.

You want to talk “three strikes and you’re out”?

While pitching for the St. Louis Cardinals in 1969, recent Hall of Fame designee Steve Carlton struck out 19 batters in a nine-inning game.

He also lost the game, 4-3.

Carlton learned that there’s a lot more to winning a game than striking people out.