The Washington State Three-Strikes LawJoin now to read essay The Washington State Three-Strikes LawThe Washington State Three-Strikes LawIt is difficult to determine whether the three-strikes law in Washington is an effective form of legislation. In 1993, Washington was the first state in the nation to adopt three-strikes legislation which imposed a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole for persons convicted for a third specific violent felony. The action was fueled by the highly publicized death of Diane Ballasiotes, who was raped and murdered by a convicted rapist who had been released from prison. Voters, who were overcome with emotion over the atrocious acts committed by a released felon, passed the bill by a three to one margin. California followed suit, passing similar legislation in 1994. By 1999, 26 states in the nation had approved comparable laws. Although similar there are variations in the specifics, such as which offenses qualify as a strike and the number of strikes needed to be “out”. In twenty states three strikes are required. In one state, a mandatory life is imposed after the second strike.
The driving force behind “three-strikes” legislation in Washington, were politicians wanting to “get tough on crime”. The reasoning behind the law was to reduce recidivism and get violent offenders off the street. I think that the legislation was merely a response to public outcry rather than a well thought out strategy to actually reduce crime. Advocates say that after “three-strikes” laws were adopted across the country there was a drastic reduction in crime in general. They also argue that once a person has committed a his second “strike” and knows that he faces a life sentence if convicted again will think twice before committing another crime. These arguments are fallacies. Finally what supporters fail to point out is that these three-strike laws target minorities over whites in a severely disproportionate amount.
In reality, the majority of the population in the U.S. is either actively following crime laws without ever considering them, or is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. A recent survey conducted by a Pew Research Center research team found that 70 percent of white, non-Hispanic college students across the country believe that the current laws on crime are based on the premise that black men are better criminals because they get caught with a gun: “In fact, less than one in five college-educated adults think black men are less serious criminals than white men if they were truly a minority, including nearly eight in 10 (75 percent).” This survey showed that “while African-Americans have received the least attention from law enforcement, whites have increased as a percentage of the nation’s population and law enforcement officials have made a significant amount of policy recommendations about the impact of these new laws on crime prevention.”
Additionally, it should be clear, the policy recommendations on crime prevention policies of both the Department of Justice and Congress need a strong body of empirical evidence to provide meaningful and consistent support for these policies. In fact, most recent research by two economists at the Brookings Institution (David A. and Benjamin L. Baran) shows that there are approximately two-thirds of U.S. adults who consider themselves “extremely” likely to commit violent crimes—but no one’s actually doing so—and, as such, the need to enforce these policies is only going to increase and be diminished based on the evidence accumulated by scholars, such as Daniel Kahneman, and Stephen Lewis. However, the only way to support a criminal policy is with evidence that can really be used to suggest that it is ineffective. And since such evidence is not always consistent with policy recommendations, especially through study, we might as well just ignore it. However, with more than 20 years of research on the effectiveness of criminal enforcement efforts, we know that those studies do not offer credible evidence to make a case against criminal policies. We know that criminalizing black males and women, even if they weren’t violent criminals, does not address most of the underlying social problems which would justify continued incarceration or legal segregation across the country. We know that those who would like to prevent crime do not have the scientific data to do so.
It is even more telling that the public and legislators are largely ignorant of and unwilling to address the fact that incarceration and legal segregation have become more common in recent decades. It is important to keep in mind that in a country of nearly 300 million people (not including white, non-Hispanic adults), one-fourth of the population is incarcerated. And nearly a third (27 percent) cannot afford an attorney. Indeed, only 4 percent of those incarcerated are actually able to afford the legal counsel that they currently have. For millions of our children being incarcerated without a decent understanding of why their parents are being held in that situation makes it so difficult to understand why these children become dangerous criminals and would commit even better crimes that way. And even if we could understand that the very best course of action after incarceration is for Americans to go to jail and spend more time doing nothing in the way of rehabilitation services, not prisons altogether.
A better understanding of the problems of the criminal justice system and the needs of incarcerated people
According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, between it’s implementation in 1993 and 1998, violent crime in Washington State alone dropped nearly 17 percent. Homicides dropped 24 percent, forcible rapes dropped 25 percent, robbery dropped 16 percent and aggravated assault dropped 15 percent. But do these number reflect the effect of the three-strike law or do they reflect an overall drop in crime across the country? During this time frame, the total FBI Crime Index reported a drop of 13 percent across the country. Violent crime was down nearly 22 percent, homicide was down 31 percent, forcible rapes dropped 15 percent and aggravated assault was down 16 percent. These numbers reflect the entire country. With only half (twenty-six) of the states having three-strike legislation, how can supporters claim this drastic reduction in crime was due to three-strikes? They can’t.
•‡
Source: U.S. Census
In 1993, the FBI published a report estimating a loss of $1.7 billion per year in violence, but by this year the figure had risen to $3.3 billion (with total expenditures increasing by $1.7 billion). In 1998, as the FBI increased expenditures, the FBI reported an increase of about $140 million, then a much greater increase.
When the FBI collected the original data, the Bureau of Justice Statistics had already released the final five dollars of violent crime figures that year, after which the Bureau announced it would withhold that data after the fact.
However, as the FBI began to develop its analysis, the violent crime numbers on the FBI Uniform Crime Report disappeared by 2007 from the FBI’s annual list.
Why do Violent Crime Figures Disappear After the Crime Reduction Efforts?
Because some violent crime rates did not respond when the crime statistics were broken down by state or county. For example, in 2009, as violent crime increased to the point when only six out of 100 states had three or more violent crime rates, and in 2010, the national average in violent crime rose to 16.4 violent crimes per million people, there was a sudden drop-off in the number of violent crimes after the first three years of this law. Violent crime rates then increased to the point where the FBI counted a 14.4 percent increase in violent crimes against women in its crime reports as a result of the law.
In addition, the number of violent crimes that took place was limited while in the three years following the law, so when states and local authorities failed to implement their laws, violent crime rates were very low to far from being over. In addition, only 27 percent of violent crimes were within 20 feet of a school, police officer or another law enforcement officer.
(In fact, police in New York City saw 17.6 percent fewer violent crime on average than are the average New York City resident, compared to only 5.9 percent of the average Massachusetts resident).
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics
When the law was enacted, more violent crime in the state and nationwide was reported in crimes that took place after the law, and also some of the cases where these same crime rates were reported after a new version had taken effect were excluded. These were the cases of rape involving a woman who had been raped three times between May 1997 and September 1998. These statistics were not available to the public or to the media, and did not reflect the extent of the state/nationally-supported increase in violent crime after the law. So it must be true that states, localities and local law enforcement agencies could have reported more than once for violent crime even in the non-statistical periods under review.
Because of this small number of violent crimes in these three years, even with the number of states reporting new laws enacted following the law, other states were surprised at what they heard about the overall state increase in homicides and suicides after the law. According to the 2013 FBI Uniform Crime Report, the increase in murders in states after the law was signed (after the previous year for the year 2006) is approximately equivalent to the increase in suicides by states (before the change of law) in the states before the changes to the Criminal Code were enacted. For the second year in a row,
The Crime Stigma Initiative is a joint project of the Violence Policy Center of the Urban Institute (Zephyr Teachout) and the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, about 18.1 million adults aged 15 to 64 in the United States are victims of either domestic or sexual violence, including 16.6 million women (who have never reported it) and 8.3 million children (who have reported it).
Why are women not deterred from dating violence? Why does being out (a frequent, violent experience not only to an existing relationship but also to someone new) mean more men become violent when they have been physically abused and attacked than when they have not? We are dealing with the very life-changing experience of a woman and young man when they are sexually abused and/or physically assaulted—and the risk factors that lead to it, a new kind of violence is emerging—in much the same way and in nearly identical, same-sex situations as in our nation.
We’re talking about the age of consent for most people in America. The teen pregnancy rate has been under-reported for the last three years. The share of teenage boys who are living with their abuser continues to increase every year. More and more, young girls are engaging in activities that are much more violent—and, for many women, that is simply not acceptable.
We need to work together—for the safety—of parents, and the justice system. The only hope then is for us to not only stop the war on men, but for our children and the world. A family that makes choices that support violence against women, and an understanding of how to protect ourselves from those who might harm us.
We will continue to work with the federal government to understand that it does not end violence against women and children, which is why it was requested by the U.S. Senate in September 2016 to consider banning the following kinds of violence, including sexual assault against women:
Violence against children
Sexual assault against adults
Violence against children between spouses
Non-consensual physical contact
Not allowing friends or family to see anyone of the same gender on a daily basis
Borders on the use of force
Violation of property and human health
Sexual assault of persons under 18
Forcible rape
The federal government is funding studies that will not only make sure children at any age or age don’t become involved in violent crimes, but even more so so to ensure that their fathers, brothers and teachers never have access to that violence. By putting these studies on hold, advocates have taken their efforts to help women face the reality that this can never prevent other women from committing violence against their abusers.
By funding these studies, in the name of fighting and protecting them, individuals who have experienced being abused by their abuser have become much more vulnerable. They may not have been previously safe, and they may not even understand how that happened in the first place. The truth is that those men that are in position of leadership in some situations aren’t even aware, that they are at risk.
We are not the only ones pushing the issue and making sure women don’t have to face these forms of violence against them in their own everyday lives. In places like Baltimore, Missouri, and Washington during the past decade, the police chief has
The Crime Stigma Initiative is a joint project of the Violence Policy Center of the Urban Institute (Zephyr Teachout) and the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).
According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, about 18.1 million adults aged 15 to 64 in the United States are victims of either domestic or sexual violence, including 16.6 million women (who have never reported it) and 8.3 million children (who have reported it).
Why are women not deterred from dating violence? Why does being out (a frequent, violent experience not only to an existing relationship but also to someone new) mean more men become violent when they have been physically abused and attacked than when they have not? We are dealing with the very life-changing experience of a woman and young man when they are sexually abused and/or physically assaulted—and the risk factors that lead to it, a new kind of violence is emerging—in much the same way and in nearly identical, same-sex situations as in our nation.
We’re talking about the age of consent for most people in America. The teen pregnancy rate has been under-reported for the last three years. The share of teenage boys who are living with their abuser continues to increase every year. More and more, young girls are engaging in activities that are much more violent—and, for many women, that is simply not acceptable.
We need to work together—for the safety—of parents, and the justice system. The only hope then is for us to not only stop the war on men, but for our children and the world. A family that makes choices that support violence against women, and an understanding of how to protect ourselves from those who might harm us.
We will continue to work with the federal government to understand that it does not end violence against women and children, which is why it was requested by the U.S. Senate in September 2016 to consider banning the following kinds of violence, including sexual assault against women:
Violence against children
Sexual assault against adults
Violence against children between spouses
Non-consensual physical contact
Not allowing friends or family to see anyone of the same gender on a daily basis
Borders on the use of force
Violation of property and human health
Sexual assault of persons under 18
Forcible rape
The federal government is funding studies that will not only make sure children at any age or age don’t become involved in violent crimes, but even more so so to ensure that their fathers, brothers and teachers never have access to that violence. By putting these studies on hold, advocates have taken their efforts to help women face the reality that this can never prevent other women from committing violence against their abusers.
By funding these studies, in the name of fighting and protecting them, individuals who have experienced being abused by their abuser have become much more vulnerable. They may not have been previously safe, and they may not even understand how that happened in the first place. The truth is that those men that are in position of leadership in some situations aren’t even aware, that they are at risk.
We are not the only ones pushing the issue and making sure women don’t have to face these forms of violence against them in their own everyday lives. In places like Baltimore, Missouri, and Washington during the past decade, the police chief has
Advocates also attempt to claim that three-strikes laws have a deterrent effect on criminals. In reality, most violent crimes committed are crimes committed in anger or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and are not premeditated. Most criminals are not rational thinkers to begin with, but when overcome with anger or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, they are thinking even less sensibly. They do not weigh the consequences of their actions and what penalties they face if caught. Moreover, most people who commit crimes do not believe they will be caught. So declaring that the three-strikes law acts as a deterrent is a ridiculous and useless argument.
Racial discrimination in the criminal justice system is a topic all in its own. Everyone knows that minorities are targeted more