The California Three Strikes law was passed in 1994 as a wave of "strike" laws swept the United States. California's law was unique, however, because people convicted of possession of a small amount of narcotics or who committed petty crimes like shoplifting were receiving life sentences. Kieso studies prosecutorial discretion, judicial discretion, jury discretion with a focus on the inconsistencies in California's usage of its Three Strikes law. Contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court's 2003 decision, Ewing v. California, which upheld the law and to public perception, Kieso demonstrates that many unjust cases result from flaws in California's political system.

In its scrutiny of California's Three Strikes law, Punishment and Democracy extracts crucial lessons about democracy and criminal justice in America."--BOOK JACKET.

The authors report on the benefits and costs of California's new mandatory-sentencing law, which provides for progressively longer sentences with an increasing number of prior convictions for serious felonies. The authors find that the new law, if fully implemented, will decrease serious crime committed by adults by about 28 percent at a cost of an extra $5.5 billion a year. Alternatives that narrow the law's application result in a lower benefit but an even greater reduction in costs. The authors were also able to devise an alternative that resulted in the same crime-reduction benefit for lower cost. The authors conclude that the state budget cuts required to fund the new law will be so great that it is unlikely to be fully implemented.

In the mid-1990s, policymakers in more than half the states and the federal government responded to escalating crime rates and a series of sensationalized crimes by passing laws that imposed lifetime sentences on repeat offenders. Since then, the Three Strikes and You're Out movement, which embodies the overall get tough with crime approach to criminal sentencing, has generated much controversy. Critics argue that Three Strike laws are disproportionate, costly, and inefficient. Supporters, however, argue that the laws are effective, necessary, and just. Despite the controversy, Three Strike laws are still popular more than a decade after their implementation. Attempts to reduce the scope and/or severity of Three Strike policies have failed and the laws continue to affect thousands of offenders each year. Setting the record straight, Walsh provides a clear, comprehensive overview of the movement and its consequences. Do Three Strikes laws really prevent crime? Do they cost less than releasing repeat offenders time and time again? Are they evenly and fairly applied? These questions and more are answered in these pages through a careful analysis of the costs, benefits, and results of Three Strikes legislation. Walsh analyzes the historical development of the Three Strikes movement in the context of get tough sentencing reforms and provides detail about the various Three Strikes statutes adopted across the nation, while offering an in-depth exmamination of the controversies they have produced. Amid efforts to repeal or revise such statutes, the laws still stand, and this book sheds light on the history of, rationale for, and results of one of the most controversial criminal justice movements of our time.

Chronicles the events leading up to the enactment of America's toughest anti-crime law.

Abstract: Proposition 36 the policy underlying the amendment to California’s Three Strikes Law was analyzed using Gil's, 1992 Policy Analysis Framework. This framework was adapted to focus on issues relevant to mass incarceration and how it affects people of color. California’s amendment to the three-strikes law (Proposition 36) represents an advance in criminal justice law and a move towards retroactive resentencing reform. Proposition 36 allows inmates who are currently serving a life sentence under the Three Strikes Law to appeal and request a resentencing to receive a shorter sentence. The Department of Corrections compiled data that found that inmates serving a sentence under the Three Strikes Law were the less likely to commit a new crime and return to prison when compared to inmates not sentenced under three strikes. Proposition 36 gives inmates hope within the prison environment and establishes a greater sense of fairness in sentencing.