CRIME WATCH : Striking Out

Little is surprising but much is dismaying in RAND’s new study of the likely effects of California’s sweeping “three-strikes-and-you’re-out” law.

RAND analysts predict that the law, which imposes 25 years to life in prison for a third conviction on a wide range of felonies, could reduce crime by as much as a third, but they say the mammoth cost involved in fully implementing the law makes any such reduction unlikely. That cost, which RAND estimates at $5.5 billion each year, or $300 from each taxpayer, would necessitate either substantial tax increases or steep reductions in spending on higher education, environmental cleanup and other state programs.

RAND concluded that alternatives could be as effective in reducing crime and would not carry the devastating economic impact of the “three-strikes” law. These alternatives include implementing the law’s “two strikes” provisions, which triple penalties for a second conviction, and fully enforcing the maximum penalties that were on the books before “three strikes” took effect.

Soon California voters will have the chance to heed RAND’s ominous warning by defeating Proposition 184, a needless measure nearly identical to the new “three-strikes” law. Defeat would signal legislators that after passing a blizzard of tough-on-crime measures this year, they now need to get real about the cost and trade-offs required. Everyone wants less crime, but crime control must be both rational and affordable. Proposition 184 and the “three-strikes” law are neither.