3 Strikes and You’re Where? Don’t Judge a Book by Its Cover

Policy-making fueled as much by frustration and anger as by careful thought is, too often, policy-making that does not achieve its objectives. Despite the best of intentions, the many bills pending in the Legislature and an initiative on the November ballot that would impose life sentences on repeat felons may be an object lesson. “Three strikes and you’re out” is a good idea that could well be undermined by poor execution and the failure of proponents to answer obvious questions and plan for implementation.

In an editorial Sunday, we addressed the first-order questions that these three-strikes proposals raise: Do some of these measures cast too broad a net when they define serious, but not necessarily violent, felonies as a “strike”? We think they do. Do California prisons have the room to incarcerate three-time felons for life? The state correctional system is already severely overcrowded and despite its ongoing building program prisons will be at more than 200% of capacity by 1999 even if none of the three-strikes proposals become law.

Today we focus on the second-order implications of these highly popular proposals: their cost and the extent to which California prisons can accommodate repeat felons serving life terms by changing the existing mix of prisoners.

Any of the three-strikes proposals certainly would place enormous additional pressure on the prison system and therefore on the state’s already barer-than-bare-bones budget. But how many more beds would be needed and how much more money would it cost to incarcerate for life the thousands of repeat felons that proponents estimate would be convicted each year? Only 1% of state prisoners currently are serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole. Even a small increase in some inmates’ sentences can produce a big need for additional space. When the average sentence of male felons recently increased by just nine days, state prison officials found they suddenly needed 500 new beds.

The state legislative analyst estimates that housing felons under the broadest of these proposals would entail several billion dollars in prison construction plus additional costs of incarceration that could reach more than $1 billion annually. The Department of Finance has yet to release its own estimate, but the Legislature and the governor seem bent on approving these proposals, despite their onerous cost potential. That’s not smart.

Can we make better use of the prison space we already have? Like some other states and the federal government, California has conducted a high-profile drug war in recent years. The percentage of state prisoners incarcerated for drug offenses has risen while that of violent criminals has dropped--from 60% to 43%. Nearly one in four state prisoners are behind bars for drug possession, manufacture or sale. The state might be able to make some room for three-time losers by rehabilitating more drug offenders and incarcerating fewer of them. But not much room, since these individuals generally receive much shorter terms than do murderers or child molesters.

Even if we could house all the three-time losers, would Californians be safer? It’s not clear. Before they were locked up for life, these repeat felons would have committed at least three major crimes--leaving at least three victims in their wake. Moreover, as the rate of incarceration has risen in California--by 300% since 1971--the crime rate has remained relatively flat. Some researchers believe that incarcerating more prisoners has helped keep the crime rate stable; others believe incarceration has had no impact on crime. Whatever the reason, crime in California has not dropped dramatically with more criminals behind bars.

What’s a better way to fight crime in California?

Proposals to incarcerate repeat felons for life make sense only if targeted on those who have committed repeat violent crimes. Such proposals would ensure that at least those individuals would not strike again.

But since criminals over 40 have a much reduced propensity for violence, why not just incarcerate violent felons until they are middle-aged rather than for life? Or spend the money we might otherwise use in keeping these aging felons in prison for life to educate them or teach them a useful skill? That might well be more cost-effective.

Clearly our current approach to crime control isn’t working. But despite the obvious visceral appeal of “three strikes,” there is no quick fix in the war on violent crime. Three-strikes laws may prove to be only the latest in a long line of criminal justice fads to capture the public’s fancy, including harsh mandatory prison terms for minor drug offenses.

Three-strikes laws may indeed prove helpful, but only if they are narrowly targeted and carefully implemented. And even then, they are not “the answer” but rather only one part of a broader, more comprehensive approach to crime that focuses as much on crime prevention as on punishment. And that means strict limits on the private possession of handguns and assault weapons, limits that can help prevent the most troubled among us from becoming three-time losers.