Three Strikes Law Uneven In Results

I know what you're thinking. Those aren't quite the lyrics to the song.

But that is exactly the issue facing the U.S. Supreme Court as it has agreed to test the constitutionality of a California act known as the "three-strikes" law.

Two men have argued that the law violates the Eighth Amendment prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.

The law permits prosecutors to seek possible life sentences for persons convicted of a third felony.

The punishment can be applied to any crime, even a nonviolent one, so long as the defendant's two prior offenses were serious or violent.

Of the 26 states that have a "three-strikes" law, California is the only one to not require that the third offense be a violent act.

In theory, the law makes sense because career criminals are sent behind bars instead of running loose on the streets.

Statistics also suggest that the law might have contributed to California's recent decline in crime, which has decreased by 41 percent during the past decade.

However, in practice, the three-strikes law does have some flaws.

For starters, since California voters approved the law in 1994, more people have been sentenced for nonviolent offenses than for violent ones. This suggests the law has not necessarily targeted the more heinous criminals.

California officials said 57 percent of the 7,000 people sentenced under the law were convicted on nonviolent third felonies, according to The Washington Post.

Of those sentenced, 644 were convicted of drug possession and 340 for petty theft.

In some respects, those figures bring both good and bad news.

On one hand, it is promising that the law is meeting its goals of catching repeat offenders and seeing to it that they are duly punished.

But on the other hand, it is troubling that so many of those third convictions are for seemingly minor acts yet bring the same punishment as violent ones.

Several criminals' rights groups have said it is unfair to jail offenders for lengthy terms for acts that normally would result in lesser sentences.

A better alternative for these offenders would be to enroll them in rehabilitation programs for issues such as drug abuse, argues Families Against California's 3 Strikes, a group fighting for amendments to the law.

While alternative programs are worth considering, they should not be viewed as a total substitute for jail time.

Instead, the law could be amended to impose a combination of both jail time and rehabilitation for nonviolent offenders in the hopes that after going through both, a person is less likely to commit yet another offense.

The law should also be amended to get rid of a clause known as the "wobbler" rule.

The rule allows prosecutors to, at their discretion, charge some third offenses as felonies rather than misdemeanors. Again the result is that some offenders are serving a lengthier sentence than they might normally.

A more appropriate move would be for the law to include strict guidelines on which crimes will be counted as felonies and thus warranting a tougher sentence.

Any room for variation in this aspect of the law opens the door for accusations of bias and unfairness by those persons who would have normally faced misdemeanor charges.

On face value, the three strikes law appears to be an ideal solution to reducing the number of repeat criminal offenders who walk the streets.

But in hindsight, you must question whether it makes sense for violent and nonviolent offenses to face the same punishment.

While it goes almost unsaid that tougher sentences should be enforced for repeat offenders, deciding magnitude of the punishments is the true question facing officials.

Unfortunately, as it stands now, the California "three strikes" law is not the answer.

Columnist April Bethea can be reached at adbethea@email.unc.edu.