Criminal law in California

A voice for the forsaken

A law that is tough on crime can also be wantonly cruel

See article

Readers' comments



The problem here is not so much the law (it was never intended to apply to petty offenses in the first place) as prosecutorial misconduct. Too often an ambitious and opportunistic prosecutor will twist and spin a matter that is either petty or outright non-criminal into an egregious outrage in order to generate publicity or favorable statistics. The answer to this dilemma is not to try to write into statute every conceivable permutation of behavior that a law might apply to but, to hold the officers of the justice system personally responsible for misusing it for personal or organizational benefit.

Frank Courser

Three Strikes sounded logical to the voters it stated it would “keep career criminals who rape women, molest innocent children and commit murder, behind bars where they belong. That was all voters needed to hear and very few read the details. Its real application was a nightmare no one could have ever imagined. Of those the ballot argument said would be convicted only 145 were convicted of rape,284 for child molestation 69 for 2nd degree murder and no one has ever been convicted for 1st degree murder under Three Strikes. The crimes not mentioned in those arguments were non-violent offenders 690 for simple drug possession, 350 for shoplifting and 181 convicted of receiving stolen property. Each inmate cost about $50,000 each year to house. There are no good time credits and those drug users caught in the net won’t be eligible for drug programs until they serve 23 year of their sentence. Prior convictions are all treated the same, so a person with two counts of attempted murder gets the same sentence as someone with two counts of burglary even it occurred 30 years before Three Strikes was enacted. Until California’s Three Strikes Law was enacted March 7th 1994 no one in the history of the United States had ever been given a life sentence for shoplifting. It is time the governor and legislature amend this law to affect only those violent offenders the voters thought would be put away. We can no longer afford this disastrous experiment.


Three strikes has a horrific effect on California's economy and an even worse effect on its citizens. It is a constant reminder of the failure of our justice systems, and is bankrupting the state.

In some states, like Kansas, serious ex-offenders are evaluated individually. Those who served their time may be released if they are no longer dangerous, but kept locked up if they are considered dangerous.

That might have saved the officers who were killed in Oakland recently by a paroled man with a history of violent incidents. And, it would salvage the lives of those who now remain incarcerated even when they have served their initial sentences and are no longer considered to be dangerous.

In California, those convicted of serious crimes are seldom released even when the parole board recommends it. The governor denies the release and that ruins salvageable lives and cost tax payers $49,000 a year for each inmate.

Tough-on-crime turned dumb-on-crime and made California the "state of higher incarceration".


As a Californian who lived through the crime wave of the early 1990s, I disagree with both the article and many of the comments.

First, the law was necessary because California was awash in repeat offenders, and would be again if the law were repealed, due to the leniency of the judiciary. Comparisons with Kansas aren't valid - they can judge individual cases because their judges are capable of making rational decisions about sentencing.

Three strikes wasn't about criminals, it was about the justice system's lack of backbone in dealing with them.

The Stanford students can assuage their upper-middle-class guilt by trying to 'save' these criminals, but if there is an outrage here, it's that the judiciary completely failed the people of California through their leniency, and created a situation where this kind of response by the people was appropriate and justified.

Until California's judges show that they care about protecting its citizens, the citizens will continue to take sentencing decisions out of their hands.

Second, the use of non-violent offenses as third strikes was and is appropriate. As economist readers (and writers), you should recognize economic signaling. By breaking lesser laws, these offenders are expressing to society that they cannot be trusted with larger responsibilities.

It's not "3 traffic tickets and you're out" - there are no innocents who are sent away for life. The first offenses must be serious; it's only the third offense that can be lesser. At that point, they have committed - and been convicted of - terrible crimes twice before, and are now signaling a desire to continue committing crimes. Good riddance to them.

Third, there is an easy way to avoid life incarceration. Simply do not commit another crime if you already have 2 strikes.

It's that simple. These people knew the rules and chose to break the law knowing that they could end up in jail forever.

I would not trade 1 more Polly Klaas for a million of them.

Io Triomphe

This law brought by the same direct-voting system that banned gay marriage and made ruinous changes to the state's ability to raise property tax revenue. California needs to give up the idea that issues should be voted on by the population directly in every election, why do we even bother having a legislature?

Frank Courser

One must look at the empirical analysis of the information that has been gathered over the last 15 years. About 25 states have Three Strikes Laws and about 25 do not. When you look at crime over the last 15 years you will find something most would not imagine. That crime in the United States fell across the nation Three Strikes or No Three Strikes. Yet the Strike-less states enjoyed a greater decrease in violent crime than Three Strikes States. Strike-less New York is now the safest city in America. They are closing prisons because they spent their law enforcement dollars on community Police, walking the beat and getting to know the neighborhoods. Where Strike Heavy California continues to build new prisons and ¼ of the prison population are strikers. If prisons were the answer to crime California should have out shown the rest of the nation from a crime stand point and it has not! The cost is unsustainable and California will spend 14.4 billion on corrections next year. Education, job training and rehabilitation such as drug problems are far more effective in reducing crime than prisons.


This is the "Prison Industrial Complex" at it's best!

Now you can send a Man "Up the River" for stealing a Pizza, instead of a couple of days in the County Jail ( No Picnic & Punishment enough ) followed by a couple of weeks of Community Service!!

Having been the occasional Victim of petty crime ( a couple of car break-ins ), I'll be the first to admit that I'd like to "Hang them all High". You come into my Home or take what's mine, then you've asked for it. Going to State Prison for LIFE, is much better than Dying!!!

It's those other petty crimes, like getting caught with some Controlled Substance like Cocaine, Speed or Heroine that's crowding our Prisons. That's Unacceptable & Cannot continue. Only the Dangerous & Violent culprits belong in the Big House, along with a few of their equally Dangerous & Violent Counterparts (with a Badge & a Gun) on the enforcement side!!!!

Peace, Love & Respect.

George V

Successful and fortunate crime is called virtue.(see Seneca,Hercules Furens). What man was ever content with one crime?

George V

As an officer of the court I would say that the judicial system should not only punish defendants for their crimes, but also it should try to educate, rehabilitate and address any mental, physical and drug addiction(s) of the accused, because punishment and incarceration only do definitely not solve all societal crime problems.


My fundamental objection to the 'Three Strikes' law is this - a just law can only provide punishments for crimes committed, not for ones likely to be committed. If we start punishing people for crimes that they are likely to commit, we necessarily punish some who would have been innocent if things had run their course.

Let's take a simple example - Say 50% of 3 time offenders who have previously commited a serious crime are going to committ another serious crime (50% seeming to be a very high number to me). Then by applying the 'Three Strikes' law we have 50% wronglfully convicted people in prisons doing serious time for minor crimes.

Let me be clear here - I believe that crimes should be severely punished and the law should protect the victim and not the criminal. However, the 'Three Strikes' law is not justice, it is a lynch mob.


I think rehabilitation of offenders is key to improving their chances of a productive life post-prison. Continuing to give people lenghty sentences does not necessarily prevent or reduce crime. The rate at which California incarcerates people, at some point the inmates will outnumber the law-abiding citizens. The latter will then fret about giving their taxes to housing 'hardcore' criminals.


You Betcha - Change We Can Believe In - The Audacity of Hope - etc. Vote little sheep, by all means vote. Of course democracy is, after all, only a game designed to make paying taxes palatable and offer an illusion of control.


I'd reintroduce corporal punishment and things like stocks in the 'public square' (or plazas as they are frequently called today) for minor offenses like drugs or petty theft.

That way, there could be a harsh enough punishment but the criminals wouldn't be such a drain on the state. That wouldn't solve the tendency for old criminals to re-offend, maybe more violently.

So maybe make criminals engage in forced labor, and make them earn their keep. Have them do jobs Americans aren't willing to do, and 'kill' two birds with one stone? I could see how this might spiral out of control, though.

The mentally retarded should not be sentenced to jail for minor crimes in the first place.

The rest, even if they have a tragic background, are still expected to uphold our common laws.

Doug Pascover

It's good to see a report on this. Toughness on crime is morally defensible but generally fiscally ridiculous and clumsy.



I thought your argument was very strong, and it somewhat changed my view on the issue. One thing I'd contest is that "These people knew the rules and chose to break the law knowing that they could end up in jail forever."

Look at how many people (largely from the same segment of society as these criminals) are still unaware about the change to digital TV from analog (estimated at two million) even though there has been an enormous amount of publicity about that for at least two years. Or the number of people who seem oblivious to the fact that smoking is bad for them.

There are a lot of very ignorant people out there.

Legal Vulture

It's been mentioned here in several posts that California pay nearly 50,000 per year to incarcerate criminals. This is a crime against the people of California. Other states do it for half as much. It's no wonder that state is bankrupt. It's really unfathomable. It cost less to get an education (room and board included) at Harvard.

Mystery Meat

"But the team at Stanford see individual tragedies. Their clients tend to be retarded or mentally ill and were addicted to drugs, homeless or abused as children. None has been violent, but all, says Mr Romano, have “been forsaken”, by parents, teachers, lawyers, judges and society."

Law is not "one size fits all." A small minority of those in jail probably do not belong there. But many of them are sociopaths - human wrecking balls that destroy their own lives and those of everyone else around them. Read what Mr. Romano said above. All these pitiable characteristics of his demented clients will be in ample evidence if they are released. What does Mr. Romano think they are going to do once they get back on the street? Life has dealt them a sharp stick and they have proceeded to stick society in the eye with it. They don't belong loose on the street making life miserable for the rest of us.

D. Sherman

One thing not mentioned in this article is the regret sometimes expressed by judges who are hamstrung by mandatory sentencing rules. Until fairly recently, we trusted judges to exercise quite a lot of discretion when imposing a punishment to fit a particular crime. A few sensational cases, combined with a Hollywood notion of crime and punishment got the voters thinking that judges can't be trusted to impose harsh enough punishments. The result is that judges might as well be replaced by a computer when it comes to meting out sentences.

No judge in his or her right mind would impose a "three strikes you're out" life sentence on a man whose last crime was petty theft, and yet that's exactly what they're forced to do. A more wisely-written law would have provided increasingly harsh sentences for repeat violent criminals, but would have left judges with the ability to exercise judgment.

Another thing to keep in mind is that only criminals who are caught are punished. The majority of murders, for example, are never solved. Devoting proportionately more resources to catching criminals would likely do more to keep the public safe than would imposing ever-harsher sentences on those who are caught. After all, the ones who are never caught are arguably smarter and more dangerous than the ones who are.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

