The answer to this dilemma came in the form of the three strikes law. The three strikes law requires anyone convicted of a third felony to receive a sentence of 25 years to life. The proposal had portion of the population supporting it at the ballot boxes. With a 75 percent margin, the law was passed (Reuben 16). On March 7, 1994 Governor Pete Wilson signed the proposal into law (Franklin 27).

Within a few years of implementation, problems with the three strikes law began to arise. Along with a lower crime came the price of overcrowded prisons. Minor crimes, such as petty theft and burglary received 25 year long sentences. Now, Californians wonder if the three strikes law gave them more than they had asked for.

This paper will argue against the three strike

The three strikes law was passed to keep violent and habitual offenders off the streets, but with such benefits came unforeseen negative circumstances. With an estimated $4.5 to $6.5 billion dollar annual price tag, the law is useless without more prisons. While no prisons are being built, the current ones are being overflowed beyond maximum capacity. At the rate the prison population is growing, many inmates will have to be released. The three strikes law has side-tracked from its main objective and it also takes away judiciary power. Supporters say the law keeps criminals locked up, but with now new prisons being built, eventually they must be let go. Supporters state it deters crime, but the crime rate has been declining nation wide. Supporters proclaim it gives people a sense of relief from crime, but the release of criminal will make that relief short-lived. Supporters state the three strikes law was the right thing to do, but the facts show it should be repealed.

s law and that it should be repealed. Arguments opposing the law will be given first. Next the arguments in support of the law will be discussed. These pro arguments will then be followed by rebuttals towards their claims. A conclusion will end the paper consisting of a summary of the main points.

Supporters also argue the law is a deterrent to crime and violent crimes, such as murder. The philosophy is as follows: If a man attained to strikes against him and knows committing a third felony will result in 25 year to life sentence, chances are he will not commit any more crimes. The crime rate has decreased in California. Overall, the crime rate has dropped 26.9 percent since 1994 (Schafer 6) and violent crime has dropped 4.2 percent (It Needed).

Another flaw with the three-strikes-law is it takes away the power from judges. Judges have the power to sentence convicted criminals, but the three strikes law takes away that power by forcing judges to mandatory sentences. Many judges stepping forward, showing their disapproval. In the case of Jose Romero, superior court judge William Mudd refused to dictate the three strikes law. Instead, he sentenced Romero to six years. The prosecution appealed, but Mudd refused. California Supreme Court Justices agreed, stating the three strike law is unconstitutional for limiting a judge's choice to lessen a third-strike sentence for the advancement of justice (Hornblower 54).

Finally, supporters state that the law gives people a sense of relief from crime. Many people in areas plagued with crime. Year after year, they would see the same people getting arrested, but only to come back to do the same criminal activities. This was

Some common words found in the essay are:
Police Department, Reform Trust, Court Justices, Department Corrections, , California Overall, Pete Wilson, York City, Enforcement Bulletin, Rand Corporation, strikes law, crime rate, prisons built, prison population, sense relief, supporters strikes law, 25 life, supporters strikes, sense relief crime, supporters law, law repealed, relief crime, strikes law repealed, people sense relief, law people sense,
Approximate Word count = 1804
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)