Running head: Examining the Three-Strike Law as a Tool of Systemic Oppression 1

Examining the Three-Strike Law as a Tool of Systemic Oppression

Anthony L. Childers
Grand Rapids Community College

Author Note
This paper was prepared for the 2023 winter semester of Sociology 206: Race and
Ethnicity, taught by professor Daniel Hendrix.
 Examining the Three-Strike

Law as a Tool of Systemic Oppression 2

Abstract
The Three-Strikes Law—or habitual offender law—has been lauded and scorned for its
potential to reduce crime. However, it stands as an institutional obstacle to equality in our
society. By mandating drastic sentences on individuals with three criminal offenses, this policy
disproportionately harms lower-income communities and those of color, who statistically have
higher rates of illegal activities. This paper will examine the Three Strikes Law's origins and how
it further exacerbates marginalization across America. Moreover, we will discuss solutions that
could be implemented so future legislation may better address contributing factors while
upholding social justice among all citizens regardless of race or class status.
 Examining the Three-Strike

Law as a Tool of Systemic Oppression 3

Historical Context
In 1994, according to the Legal Information Institute, the Three-Strikes Law policy was
first introduced in California following the murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas. The perpetrator,
Richard Allen Davis, had a lengthy criminal record and had been released from prison before
committing the crime. This case garnered immense media attention, which created a public
outcry demanding justice. As a result, then Governor Pete Wilson proposed establishing this law
when it swiftly passed through state legislature on his behalf. The Three-Strikes Law thus
mandates that anyone who commits three serious offenses must face life imprisonment without
parole as punishment for their actions, with no exceptions made, to prevent repeat offenders from
continuing their heinous acts (Stanford Law Schol). They attempted to protect society's safety
from violent criminals by implementing this tough legal stance towards them (Ewing v.
California). However, implementing such strict measures has also led to severe repercussions
against marginalized communities across California, among other affected regions, over time due
to its controversial nature. The conflict perspective views the three-strike rule as a ruling class
tool to maintain power and control over marginalized communities by disproportionately
applying such laws against individuals from minority backgrounds, resulting in systemic
inequality that benefits wealthy and influential members at the expense of the lower class, who
lack similar advantages. This perpetuates a cycle that leads to mass incarceration for minorities,
arguably without addressing social injustice issues these communities face or providing adequate
rehabilitation programs for offenders. On the other hand, functionalist theorists believe that
three-strike laws are essential components of criminal justice systems; they act as deterrents
towards potential offenders and protect society from dangerous criminals, conveying clear
messages about how criminal behavior will not be tolerated if somebody decides to pursue it.
Furthermore, the meanings attached to the three-strike law policy can significantly impact
how individuals perceive the policy and how they behave. Symbolic Interactionism may suggest
that the importance attached to objects, behaviors, and policies is not fixed but can evolve
through social interactions. In terms of the three-strike law policy, individuals may stick different
symbolic meanings to it based on their personal experiences. This leads us to consider how this
policy impacts people’s behavior, particularly those who view themselves as potential targets of
such a rule due to past run-ins with law enforcement or prejudice against certain demographic
groups. The indication that an individual has been convicted for more than two offenses can lead
society to label them as “criminals,” which carries stigma associated with criminalization and
marginalization, influencing their future actions in potentially harmful ways. This indication
creates a self-fulfilling prophecy leading towards cycles of recidivism disproportionately
impacting minority communities at significant levels across many states within our country
today.
Impact & Affect
Three-strike laws have come under much scrutiny for the potential of disproportionately
criminalizing people of color. For example, according to a study by The Sentencing Project
(2018), African Americans who are subjected to three-strikes statutes are 30% more likely than
whites to receive an extended sentence that is equal in length or longer than their actual criminal
conduct suggests, such as mandatory life imprisonment without parole. The effects on those
 Examining the Three-Strike

Law as a Tool of Systemic Oppression 4

targeted by this legislation can devastate individuals and entire communities. At least 24 states
have some variation of the three-strikes law drastically. Conditions for what constitutes a "strike"
differ across states; most require the first two strikes to be violent felonies, but the third strike
varies. Some states will only consider another violent felony as the third strike, while others
might count any felony or misdemeanor as such. States tend to increase punishment after three
eligible offenses; however, some exceptions mandate life imprisonment after just two striking
offenses (Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina). Maryland is an outlier in requiring
four strikes before life imprisonment is mandated. There are also many states whose laws include
a two-strike provision wherein if someone commits one strikeable offense, they are given twice
their typical sentence term as punishment; California is one example. Additionally varying by the
state when discussing Three-Strikes Laws is eligibility for parole; several automatic sentences of
life without parole once three good offenses have been identified (Georgia, Montana, Tennessee,
Louisiana, South Carolina, Indiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington
Wisconsin) while other less restrictive states offer an option of parole having served a set amount
of time following conviction(California Colorado and New Mexico). The varying yet similar
mechanisms of the policy, coupled with its effect in almost half of the states in the U.S., increase
America’s prison population while providing little evidence of reducing crime rates.
Moreover, as inmates remain incarcerated due mainly to long sentences imposed through
the Three-Strikes Laws, they may no longer contribute economically to society when
rehabilitation is otherwise possible (Prison Policy Initiative, 2018). Furthermore, recidivism, a
repeated or habitual relapse into criminal behavior, remains high among individuals released
from prisons after serving time behind bars based on these strict sentencing policies (Joshi,
2021), further amplifying an already terrible situation. Research indicates that the three-strike
law policy can substantially affect families and neighborhoods. Individuals who experience
incarceration due to this policy often spend prolonged time away from their families, triggering
further disorder in households and areas. Attention may be taken away from sections such as
schooling and social benefit systems, which could help reduce factors contributing to the
commission of crimes (Stolzenberg & D'Alessio, 1997).
Individuals targeted by three-strike laws may suffer significant consequences impacting
their political representation and civic engagement. These individuals often face reduced access
to voting rights, as many states restrict the eligibility of those convicted of a felony from
participating in elections. Additionally, these laws disproportionally affect minority communities
through increased incarceration rates and difficulty accessing employment opportunities. The
controversial three-strike law policy must be reformed to promote justice and fairness within our
criminal justice system.
Eliminating the Problem
Society has options for eliminating the issues surrounding the three-strikes rules with
their own potential cost and benefits. One option is eliminating the three-strikes law, removing
mandatory sentencing guidelines, and giving judges more control over decisions. However, such
an approach can be expensive regarding resources and public safety, as studies show that
released offenders are more likely to commit new crimes than those who stay incarcerated (L
Song et al., 1993). In addition, there could also be strong resistance against getting rid of the
 Examining the Three-Strike

Law as a Tool of Systemic Oppression 5

regulation, particularly by law enforcement personnel and victim advocacy groups. Another
choice is altering the three-strikes law so it less affects non-violent criminals. A few states have
applied "sunrise" clauses restricting how this legislation is used for specific offenses, such as
violent acts, limiting its application only when necessary for public protection.
Nonetheless, this alternative may face criticism as some view it as too lenient concerning
crime prevention efforts. Lastly, another option available involves tackling social problems like
poverty, substance abuse, or mental health concerns. Tackling those issues directly with
investments in education, healthcare, or other services aiming at helping individuals deal with
these matters decreases their chances of participating in criminal behavior. Though initially
costly, studies indicate that investing in social programs can yield enduring outcomes like
reducing crime rates and recidivism (Cohen & Piquero, 2009). Society has several alternatives to
address issues caused by the three-strikes rule, but each one carries its pros and cons: repealing it
entails financial costs plus a riskier environment; changing its provisions regarding non-violent
perpetrators risks making things soft on criminals, yet targeting underlying economic causes
behind illicit activities alleviates long term expenses while reaping benefits related to decreased
criminality/recidivism rates (Cohen & Piquero, 2009). A significant part of effective combative
measures to the three-strikes rules is the social movements that fuel them.
Social Movements
One of the most influential early social movements to address California's three-strikes
law, from 2012, was spearheaded by the "Three Strikes Project" at Stanford Law School in
partnership with Legal Defense Force (LDF). This project campaigned for Proposition 36, or the
Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012. This act aimed to provide legal assistance to those facing life
imprisonment due to non-violent offenses and reduce overpopulation in prisons. According To a
Stanford Criminal Justice Center report, numerous individuals have been given reduced
sentences or alternative solutions due to the Three Strike Project's efforts (Stanford Law School).
Furthermore, LDF and Three Strike Project published a progress report upon reaching the
1,000th prisoner release under Proposition 36, which showed that the recidivism rate among
prisoners released through Proposition 36 is shallow compared to the national average; plus
fiscal benefits are evident (Reforming California's "Three Strikes" Policy 2018). California
prison system has saved an astonishing 12.5 million dollars on Proposition 36 disciplinary
measures within the first year following its signing into law, with potential cost savings
increasing further ahead. Another social movement seeking to address the three-strikes law is the
"Repeal California's Three Strikes Law Coalition." The Repeal California's Three-Strikes Law
Coalition, formed in response to the extreme sentences created by the three-strikes law in
California, has worked since its inception to reduce or eliminate the adverse effects of this law on
non-violent offenders. In November 2022, they attempted to have a ballot initiative to repeal the
law as an initiated state statute; however, their efforts were unsuccessful. Despite this setback,
members of The Coalition have persisted and achieved incremental gains at local levels
throughout California. In addition to The Coalition's efforts, multiple other social movements are
working towards addressing issues surrounding the three-strikes law; for example, the California
Prison Moratorium Project advocates for suspending prison construction with more focus on
community rehabilitation programs instead (Braz & Gilmore, 2006). This movement strives to
 Examining the Three-Strike

Law as a Tool of Systemic Oppression 6

bring attention and awareness about how damaging these laws can be and faces significant
opposition from individuals like those within enforcement agencies. With tremendous work
being done by various social movements working to eliminate the issues of habitual offender
laws, a question about the future of our society can and must be answered.
Future Analysis
Since implementing the Three-Strikes Law, which seeks to increase prison sentences for
repeat offenders and deter them from committing further crimes, many states have not witnessed
a significant dip in crime. This desire to abolish the policy has been expressed by critics, who
condemn its ineffective nature and how it disproportionately affects minorities and individuals
with lower incomes. Amid public outcry concerning overfilled prisons, various states, such as
California, are altering their Three-Strikes Laws. Broad prison population changes have been
enforced within California following a 2011 ruling from the Supreme Court in the Brown v Plata
case; this decision significantly reduced the state's inmate count for it to adhere to its 8th
Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment. As a result of such new policies
associated with Public Safety Realignment, there is now an increased ratio between individuals
sentenced to serve time behind bars for their entire lives as opposed to before these reforms were
implemented (Sentencing, 2013). This trend of change in prison systems across the U.S. may
impact decisions made concerning the three -strikes rules and could continue into the foreseeable
future; however, efforts to amend the policy have been defeated in the past.
Another possible outcome is a shift towards modifying the existing three-strike rule to
make it more equitable for those affected. As previously mentioned, the passage of Proposition
36 in 2012 altered existing law by limiting the offenses for which life imprisonment can be
applied. Making changes such as altering what qualifies an offense as a “strike.” In addition,
there has been a surge in legislation to promote more lenient sentencing for non-violent crimes.
For example, in 2021, Washington revised their three-strikes rule with Washington’s Senate Bill
5164. The revision reduces the sentences of people with non-violent convictions. These laws
include penalties for drug offenses, often classified as "strike" offenses under three-strike rules
(PLLC, 2022). This is done to decrease the number of individuals who receive disproportionately
harsh punishments due to their criminal history, particularly minorities and low-income
communities. Other states may follow in Washington’s footsteps, decreasing the severity of the
tuff-on-crime policy.
Finally, there is a scenario where no substantial transformation occurs; policymakers may
choose not to prioritize criminal justice reform if they remain confident that existing statutes
efficiently discourage crime activity or feel compelled to focus on other matters as they
commonly have been. The habitual offender policies span back as early as 1994 and have been
criticized since as far back as 1998 without any complete abolishment. If this trend proceeds,
offenders will continue to be exposed to serve punishments for violating laws deemed ineligible
under these legislations.
 Examining the Three-Strike

Law as a Tool of Systemic Oppression 7

References
Ashley Nellis, P. D. (2022, December 16). The Color of Justice: Racial and ethnic disparity in
state prisons. The Sentencing Project. Retrieved April 3, 2023, from
https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/the-color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity
-in-state-prisons-the-sentencing-project/
Author(s) L Song; R Lieb, & Corporate Author Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Address 110 Fifth Avenue Southeast. (1993, September). Recidivism: The effect of
incarceration and length of time served. Recidivism: The Effect of Incarceration and
Length of Time Served | Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved April 8, 2023, from
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/recidivism-effect-incarceration-and-le
ngth-time-served
Braz, R., & Gilmore, C. (2006). Joining forces: Prisons and environmental justice in recent
California organizing. Radical History Review, 2006(96), 95–111.
https://doi.org/10.1215/01636545-2006-006
California repeal three-strikes law initiative (2022). Ballotpedia. (n.d.). Retrieved April 8, 2023,
from https://ballotpedia.org/California_Repeal_Three-Strikes_Law_Initiative_(2022)
Cohen, M. A., & Piquero, A. R. (2008). New evidence on the monetary value of saving a
high risk youth. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(1), 25–49.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-008-9057-3
Grubb, A. A. H. (2019, August 1). Eliminating 3-strikes policies: A secondary research analysis
that evaluates 3-strikes policies and proposes a strategy for weaning states off of a policy
that does not work. ScholarWorks@UA Home. Retrieved April 8, 2023, from
https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/handle/11122/10959
Her Lawyer. (2022, July 5). Three-strikes law: Which states have it? Her Lawyer. Retrieved
April 8, 2023, from
https://herlawyer.com/three-strikes-law-which-states-have-it/#:~:text=States%20that%20
have%20some%20form,Virginia%2C%20Washington%2C%20and%20Wisconsin.
Initiative, P. P. (n.d.). Reforms without results: Why states should stop excluding violent offenses
from Criminal Justice Reforms. Reforms Without Results: Why states should stop
excluding violent offenses from criminal justice reforms | Prison Policy Initiative.
Retrieved April 3, 2023, from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/violence.html
Joshi, A. (2021, August 18). Explainer: Three strikes laws and their effects. Interrogating Justice.
Retrieved April 7, 2023, from
https://interrogatingjustice.org/mandatory-minimums/three-strikes-laws-and-effects/
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Ewing v. California. Legal Information Institute. Retrieved
April 1, 2023, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/01-6978
Paper: Three strikes laws don't prevent crime. Open Society Foundations. (2002, July 8).
Retrieved April 7, 2023, from
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/newsroom/paper-three-strikes-laws-dont-prevent
-crime
PLLC, M. L. O. (2022). Why Washington's three-strike rule is being changed: Maxey Law
Office, PLLC: Spokane, Washington. Maxey Law Office. Retrieved April 9, 2023, from
 Examining the Three-Strike

Law as a Tool of Systemic Oppression 8

https://www.maxeylaw.com/blog/2022/january/why-washington-s-three-strike-rule-is-bei
ng-chan/#:~:text=While%20society%20is%20trying%20to,of%20people%20with%20no
nviolent%20convictions.
Project, M. S. L. S. |T. S. (n.d.). Three strikes project. Stanford Law School. Retrieved April 3,
2023, from https://law.stanford.edu/three-strikes-project/
Reforming California's "Three strikes" policy. Legal Defense Fund. (2018, March 9). Retrieved
April 3, 2023, from
https://www.naacpldf.org/case-issue/reforming-californias-three-strikes-policy/
Sentencing. Sentencing | Washington State Department of Corrections. (2013, September 9).
Retrieved April 6, 2023, from
https://doc.wa.gov/corrections/justice/sentencing/default.htm
Stolzenberg, L., & D'Alessio, S. J. (1997). “three strikes and you're out”: The impact of
California's new mandatory sentencing law on serious crime rates. Crime &
Delinquency, 43(4), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128797043004004