Jordan Eknoian

October 12th, 2021

English 301

Dr. Bruce

Annotated Bibliography: Three Strike Policy

Research Question: Why is the three-strike system not effective?

Thesis: It punishes people committing petty crimes harshly and adds to the United States

overcrowding problem in the prison system.

Introduction:

The Three strike initiative is a system that is in dire need of being updated to today’s

standards. This system was created decades ago and is too vague when it comes down to

counting what is and isn’t a strike. Someone that robbed a store shouldn’t be set on the same

pedestal as someone that has committed violent crimes. “That initiative mandates life in prison

for anyone convicted of three felonies. In addition to support for that initiative, support for two

other aspects of reactions to rule breaking is also examined: (1) other punitive public policies

toward rule breakers; (2) willingness to abandon procedural protections when dealing with

possible rule breakers.” (Tyler & Boeckmann, 1997) which this sounds good in a perfect world

but you can see where its lacking in detail they need to specify more on what should be

considered a strike. This system has led to and continues to add on to the United States’

ever-growing prison system overpopulation problem. The three-strike initiative doesn’t take into
regard that most crimes committed are actually non-violent and these people shouldn’t be sent

away to prison for years it will only make their situations worst and lead to repeat offenses once

they get out. Instead, the focus needs to be on how every criminal shouldn’t be treated the same,

as well as non-violent and violent crimes, should be counted differently when it comes down to

strikes. Prosecutors should be able to look at the person’s file and notice the repeat offenses and

understand why they are committing these crimes so they can better understand how to help

rehabilitate them instead of putting them away. If you have a family or a strong role model when

growing up it is likely that you will understand the difference between right and wrong better

“Past studies have supported the suggestion that symbolic motivations influence responses to

rules and rule breaking.” (Tyler & Boeckmann, 1997) which is true because there were strong

social bonds at a younger age. The three-strike initiative system has such a negative connotation

and focuses too much on punishing instead of preventing or helping the individual on

non-violent crimes. They still need to be punished but sending them to prison won’t stop the

issue just temporarily put it to a pause.

 Work Cited

Tyler, T. R., & Boeckmann, R. J. (1997). Three strikes and you are out, but why? the

psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers. Law & Society Review, 31(2),

237. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053926

Annotation: In this article, the author puts a lot of emphasis on “rule breakers” and goes

over how the three-strike initiative works and directs the focus on why people want to

punish rule breakers. This review investigates why individuals need to rebuff rule breakers.

It resolves two issues: (1) the wellsprings of help for the discipline of rule-breaking

conduct and (2) the idea of public help for rebuffing the individuals who defy accepted

practices. Three fundamental wellsprings of help are analyzed: wrongdoing-related

concerns, worries about friendly conditions, and social qualities. Two perspectives about

the idea of public help are thought of: the instrumental judgment that the world is

hazardous and the social judgment that the world needs friendly attachment. These issues

are tended to with regards to help for a new open drive in California: the "three strikes"

drive. That drive orders life in jail for anybody sentenced for three lawful offenses. They

shift into how people are quick to punish over helping and don’t look at the bigger picture.

How that social bonds play a huge role in preventing rule breakers.

Caulkins, J. P. (n.d.). How large should the strike zone be in "three strikes and you're out"
sentencing laws? Journal of Quantitative Criminology. Retrieved October 19, 2021, from
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1011098100458

Annotation: In this article, the author talks about the rise and the popularity of the

three-strike system and how it was implemented in the 90s. It seemed as if when they first

created this the main focus was to punish and lock away as many criminals as possible. The
 government wanted to “control crime”(Caulkins, 2021) which sounds good on paper but

didn’t translate well over time with all the overcrowding in prisons throughout the United

States. They aren’t looking at criminals as citizens or people more or less treating them like

how much money are we going to lose by keeping them incarcerated “ The name derives

from the obvious analogy in American baseball, and these laws appeal to a certain intuitive

notion of justice. Everyone is allowed to foul up once, even twice, but three-time offenders

forfeit their right to be rehabilitated and are given very long sentences, up to life

imprisonment.”(Caulkins, 2021) criminals still have rights and should still have the right

to change their lives around even after a third mistake. Everyone has different lives and

grew up differently and were put in bad situations. Everyone should have the right to

habilitation. The government chooses the approach of punishing over habilitation believing

it is more effective but in reality if you are stuck in a prison for a majority of your life all

you know is crime and will eventually just become a repeat offender.

Schultz, David (2000) "No Joy in Mudville Tonight: The Impact of Three Strike Laws
on State and Federal Corrections Policy, Resources, and Crime Control," Cornell
Journal of Law and Public Policy: Vol. 9: Iss. 2, Article 5.

Annotation: In the article they talk about the increase in crime at the time and that “Americans

have considered crime as a national problem.” (Schultz, 2000) which is why politicians started to

get involved. They wanted to crack down on crime with a tougher approach and “cracking down

on allegedly lenient judges” which they believed would allow them to sentence and punish more

criminals more efficiently. They also went as far to give officers and law enforcement more

power when it came down to investigations and arresting individuals. They enforced bail

restrictions on suspects being accused of violent crimes and even went as far as extending the
limit for the death penalty. When the 90s rolled around they introduced the three strike system in

hopes that is gave “proponents as the new get tough way to reduce crime and get habitual

offenders off the street” at the time there was controversy as if this was too costly and cruel but

they still went through and continued to push the three strike system.

Brian P. Janiskee & Edward J. Erler, Crime, Punishment, and Romero: An Analysis
of the Case Against California's Three Strikes Law, 39 Duq. L. Rev. 43 (2000).

Annotation: In this article talks about the impacts that the three strike system has had on

the United States focusing more on california. It starts off with “The thesis of the study is

that California's Three Strikes law has failed to deter crime.”(Janiskee & Erler, 2000)

which has been a pattern I've noticed throughout these articles. It goes on to state how there

is no connection in prison time and increased sentencing to actualing helping habitual

criminals or really having an impact on society. It even goes on to say that it has created a

different reality than the politicians originally hoped for and has done the exact opposite.