They are the same purpose and the same thing. 3-strikes is by its very definition a mandatory minimum sentencing guideline. Moreover, not every kind of felony h

They are the same purpose and the same thing. 3-strikes is by its very definition a mandatory minimum sentencing guideline. Moreover, not every kind of felony has a mandatory minimum statute, whereas a broad range of serious crimes could qualify as part of 3-strikes sentencing. It's true that some criminals may be irredeemable. The ideal is that only these criminals face the punishment intended by 3-strikes, the reality is that otherwise rehabilitatable criminals might be unduly punished. For example, prosecutors can use the statute to pressure a defendant to plead guilty or testify as state's witness, with no ability for judges to act as a check on sentencing if the defendant goes to trial and loses. And of course, there are the criminals who get life in prison for minor, usually drug-related crimes [0]. [0] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cruel-and-unusual-punishment-the-shame-of-three-strikes-laws-92042/ https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/cruel-an... https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/california-horror-stories-and-the-3-strikes-law.html https://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/opinion/sunday/california...