Three-Strikes Law Has No Effect, Study Finds

Five years after it was hailed as a major deterrent to crime, California’s three-strikes sentencing law has had no measurable effect on reducing violence, according to a study to be released today.

Crime has fallen at about the same rate in counties that aggressively enforce the three-strikes law as in those that do not, the study found. In addition, violent crime by felons ages 30 to 39 has actually increased.

“The study shows that when both the age groups and the areas of the state most affected by the law are analyzed, there is no effect on crime,” said the study’s co-author, Mike Males, a doctoral candidate in social ecology at UC Irvine. “The reason is that the law is simply too broad.”

The study by the Justice Policy Institute, a left-leaning research organization based in San Francisco, found no correlation between California’s general drop in crime and the imposition of longer, mandatory sentences for repeat felons. The findings are based on information from the California Criminal Justice Statistics Center and the data analysis unit of the state Department of Corrections.

Examining the state’s 12 largest counties, which account for three-quarters of California’s population and four-fifths of its crime, researchers found radically different rates of sentencing under three strikes. The law doubles the sentence of second-time felons and mandates 25 years to life for those convicted of a third felony.

Researchers found that counties most closely following the three-strikes law, including Los Angeles and Sacramento, did not enjoy the greatest decrease in crime.

“Data clearly shows that counties that vigorously and strictly enforce the three-strikes law did not experience a decline in any crime category relative to more lenient counties,” said the study, which will be published this fall in the Stanford Law and Policy Review.

“Even more remarkable, the sevenfold proportionally greater use of three strikes in Sacramento and Los Angeles was not associated with a bigger decline than in Alameda and San Francisco counties that barely use the law,” the study said. “In fact, San Francisco, the county which uses three strikes most sparingly, witnessed a greater decline in violent crime, homicides, and all index crime than most of the six heaviest enforcing counties.”

Without addressing a study they have not yet seen, prosecutors here and statewide dispute the idea that the three-strikes law has not reduced crime.

“We think three strikes is an effective prosecution tool and we have used it extensively,” said Victoria Pipkin, spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, the nation’s largest.

Lawrence Brown, executive director of the California District Attorneys Assn., called the sentencing law a tremendous success.

Although he had not seen the study, Brown said, a county-to-county comparison is not a valid method of assessing the law’s impact.

The three-strikes law, he said, “has done everything that the Legislature and voters intended. We have put away the worst of the worst and have made our communities safer as a result.”

But the study challenges that assertion.

In addition to disputing a link between crime reduction and a county’s application of three strikes, the study found that the one age group most affected by the law, felons ages 30 to 39, have committed more crimes.

“In other words, the age group that is most likely to be sentenced under three strikes witnessed increases in felony arrests and violent crime,” the study found.

“I was shocked by that,” Males said. “Despite the most punitive sentencing law in state history targeting a specific age group, those over 30, the law registered no deterrent effect.”

Dan Macallair of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in San Francisco and one of the study’s co-authors, called the new law a costly flop.

“If three strikes was successful, we would be able to show that with the very population it was targeting,” he said. “And instead, we have the opposite effect.”

The reason, the authors contend, is that the law does not limit itself to criminals whose second or third offense is violent. The law applies to any third felony offense.

Since the law took effect, the study said, less than 1% of the almost 40,000 second- and third-strike inmates have been convicted of murder. About one-fifth were found guilty of a violent offense, including robbery.

By contrast, the study said, 37% were convicted of property crimes, such as theft, and 30% were found guilty of drug offenses, mostly possession.

“Basically we are getting a lot of nuisances, not menaces,” Males said.

“They are not the Richard Allen Harris [type],” he said, referring to the ex-felon whose slaying of Polly Klaas gave rise to the three-strikes law.

“If the state is going to spend half a million to $1 million to lock up somebody for 25 to life, we better make sure that he is the worst of the worst. Because for [that amount] you can do a lot to treat a drug addiction . . . and return this person to society.”

(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)

Analysis of Cases

A study by the Justice Policy Institute found that California’s three-strikes sentencing law has been applied mostly for nonviolent crimes since its inception five years ago. Felons between 30 to 39 make up the largest age group given stiffer sentences.

*--*

Offense 2nd strike 3rd strike Murder 175 137 Robbery 2,674 783 Felony assault 2,737 399 Rape/child sexual assault 973 291 Kidnapping 73 40 Manslaughter 116 21 Burglary 4,785 830 Theft/stolen property 6,178 392 Vehicle theft 1,576 146 Forgery/fraud/other property 576 65 Drug possession 7,091 425 Marijuana sales/other 556 23 Drug manufacture/sales/other 3,370 390 Weapons possession 2,395 250 Escape/DUI/other 1,412 120

*--*

****

Felons sentenced for

*--*

Age 2nd strike 3rd strike Under 20 470 14 20-24 5,009 176 25-29 7,603 653 30-39 15,297 2,224 40-49 5,873 1,071 50+ 1,111 220 Total 35,363 4,368

*--*

Source: California Department of Corrections, through June 30, 1998