Although Texas was the first state to enact a Three-Strikes Law in the early 70’s, twenty-six states have since followed suit. Texas refers to the law as the Texas Habitual Offender Statute which sentences a convicted felon to 2-20 years if he has two prior felony convictions. The twenty-six states which recognize the Three-Strikes Law apply the law in different manners; for instance in California only the first two crimes need be violent or serious felonies while in other states all three crimes must fall under the definition of a violent or serious felony. In the state of Texas if you are accused of committing a crime and have been convicted more than once your sentence may be doubled and a “strike” goes on your criminal record.
Theories behind the Three Strikes Law
There are three basic theories in favor of the Three Strikes Law. The first is that sentencing enhancements keep habitual offenders behind bars restricting them from re-offending. Second, the risk of harsher penalties prevents potential offenders from breaking the law. Finally, many believe that those who are on their third crime are simply incapable of being reformed therefore should be taken out of society. In fact, many feel laws like the Three Strike Law or the Habitual Offender Statute are the only answer to the increasing levels of crime while others feel the laws are simply not constitutional. Proponents of the Three Strikes Law point to the fact that crime rates typically drop following the passage of the law while others believe other factors could be responsible for those drops.
Constitutionality of the Three Strikes Law
Because the mandates under the Three Strikes Law eliminate the ability of the sentencing courts to take circumstances of past convictions or the elements of the current crime into consideration it is up for debate as to whether these laws are constitutional. The 8th Amendment—which prohibits excessive bail, fines or cruel and unusual punishment—is considered by some to be violated when the Three Strikes or Habitual Offender Laws are put into practice. In other words, the Three Strikes Law could certainly be considered cruel and unusual punishment, particularly when there is no leeway given courts to consider the circumstances of each individual case.
The Three Strikes Law can seem very arbitrary when, in light of clear evidence of prisoner rehabilitation, early release is not an option. There is also an argument to be made that the Three Strikes Law potentially violates a defendant’s protection against double jeopardy. When a defendant’s sentence for a current crime is based on a prior crime, is he or she being punished again for the same offense? A final argument against the Three Strikes Law is the fact that it obviously adds to a prison system which is dangerously overcrowded.
Whether crime is truly committed by a relatively small group of offenders who, when incarcerated under the Three Strikes Law, are unable to continue committing crimes, is open to debate. When looking at the total picture, in certain cases the Three Strikes Law surely creates penalties which most would agree are simply too harsh for the crime committed. As such, the Three strikes law may very well be revisited at some point in the future, but for now, it remains firmly in place in Texas.