3 ms·

Yeah, but maybe it was the appeal to baseball that sealed it.

_dark_matter_ 11y ago
This is what always amazed me about this law, even when it passed when I was a kid. It was based on what...a sport? Was there any evidence at the time that this was even effective?
- eastbayjake 11y ago
  That seems like an uncharitable interpretation of the rationale behind these laws. One could argue -- completely divorced from sports analogies -- that the third time someone commits a serious crime they are exhibiting a pattern of lawless, antisocial behavior and not merely one-off offenses. (I still don't believe there's much evidence that this approach serves as a deterrent, and it certainly doesn't help rehabilitation to lump many different crimes together -- including non-violent ones like bicycle theft.)
mullen 11y ago
No. As a Californian, it was the appeal of getting all those people off the street and into a warehouse somewhere out in the Desert or on the Coast. Crime in the 90's was pretty bad out here and many people, including myself, had no problems with taking people who would knock you over the head for a dollar and sticking them somewhere until age or common sense had taught them otherwise. Now, not teaching people about the outside world after they have been in jail for 20 years is pretty dumb. These people who have been locked for a while need mentor and class on how the outside world works.
- ectoplasm 11y ago
  But, like, why "three strikes you're out" and not this: totalSentence = firstTimeOffenderSentence * (1 + numberOfPriors)
  - lkrubner 11y ago
    That's a bad idea. A roughly Pareto law (80/20) applies to criminals. The majority of all murders are done by a small group. Meanwhile, the majority of all murderers never commit another crime. Jail sentences should be relatively light for the 80 and fairly severe for the 20. That means first-time offenders should get minimal sentences, but repeat offenders should get long prison terms.
    - ectoplasm 11y ago
      You're saying a few things: 1) light sentences for 80, and heavy sentences for 20; 2) light sentences for first-timers, and heavy sentences for repeat offenders; 3) more than half of the 20 are first-timers. Per 3, at least 11/20 exist that should get a heavy sentence under 1 and a light sentence under 2, which is a contradiction. If we just forget about the murder thing, why not "two strikes you're out" then? Because baseball?
      - lkrubner 11y ago
        The 80% and the first timers are mostly the same group, since the 80% only commit one crime during their life. Therefore, when you deal with a first-time, chances are good that you are dealing with someone who will only ever commit one crime. Therefore a lighter than average sentence is justified. Likewise, the 20% and the repeat-offenders are mostly the same people, so you can treat them as one group. So if you are dealing with someone who has committed a second or third crime, you can assume they are in the 20% who commit most crimes. And therefore you should apply severe penalties. I don't know where you got "more than half of the 20 are first-timers." That is simply impossible: by definition, no one is in the 20% if they are a first-timer. You can read more about the Pareto Principle here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle From Wikipedia: "The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes." This has been proven to apply to crime. Roughly 80% of crimes are committed by 20% of the people who break the law.
- tptacek 11y ago
  Didn't crime rates famously fall in the 1990s?
  - Devthrowaway80 11y ago
    Don't bring facts into this!
  - harryh 11y ago
    Per capita murder rates in the US peaked at 9.8 (per 100k) in 1991 and we still close to that peak at 9.5 when CA passed their three strikes law in 1993. Edit: actually 1991 was a local maxima. It was exceeded by a bit in the early 80s. Still though these laws were definitely passed when crime was quite high.
  - dhimes 11y ago
    It looks like crime rates rose- even sharply- in the first part of the decade, then fell (if this source can be believed). http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=154 http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=154
- Spellman 11y ago
  Also, at the national level, the Three Strikes came around when most of America was in the middle of a lot of drug-related violence. So the Three Strikes rule, plus the War on Drugs, plus the Kingpin laws were used with extreme prejudice to try and curtail the panic. Granted, now we have the benefit of hindsight and statistics to see how effective those have been. Getting rid of several heads of crime rings? Exceptionally well. Just watch Gangsters: America's Most Evil from A&E. Every single person came from that era. How well has it worked on drugs in general or crime rates? That's much more debatable. EDIT: typo

This is what always amazed me about this law, even when it passed when I was a kid. It was based on what...a sport? Was there any evidence at the time that this was even effective?

eastbayjake 11y ago
That seems like an uncharitable interpretation of the rationale behind these laws. One could argue -- completely divorced from sports analogies -- that the third time someone commits a serious crime they are exhibiting a pattern of lawless, antisocial behavior and not merely one-off offenses. (I still don't believe there's much evidence that this approach serves as a deterrent, and it certainly doesn't help rehabilitation to lump many different crimes together -- including non-violent ones like bicycle theft.)

mullen 11y ago

No. As a Californian, it was the appeal of getting all those people off the street and into a warehouse somewhere out in the Desert or on the Coast. Crime in the 90's was pretty bad out here and many people, including myself, had no problems with taking people who would knock you over the head for a dollar and sticking them somewhere until age or common sense had taught them otherwise. Now, not teaching people about the outside world after they have been in jail for 20 years is pretty dumb. These people who have been locked for a while need mentor and class on how the outside world works.

ectoplasm 11y ago
But, like, why "three strikes you're out" and not this: totalSentence = firstTimeOffenderSentence * (1 + numberOfPriors)
- lkrubner 11y ago
  That's a bad idea. A roughly Pareto law (80/20) applies to criminals. The majority of all murders are done by a small group. Meanwhile, the majority of all murderers never commit another crime. Jail sentences should be relatively light for the 80 and fairly severe for the 20. That means first-time offenders should get minimal sentences, but repeat offenders should get long prison terms.
  - ectoplasm 11y ago
    You're saying a few things: 1) light sentences for 80, and heavy sentences for 20; 2) light sentences for first-timers, and heavy sentences for repeat offenders; 3) more than half of the 20 are first-timers. Per 3, at least 11/20 exist that should get a heavy sentence under 1 and a light sentence under 2, which is a contradiction. If we just forget about the murder thing, why not "two strikes you're out" then? Because baseball?
    - lkrubner 11y ago
      The 80% and the first timers are mostly the same group, since the 80% only commit one crime during their life. Therefore, when you deal with a first-time, chances are good that you are dealing with someone who will only ever commit one crime. Therefore a lighter than average sentence is justified. Likewise, the 20% and the repeat-offenders are mostly the same people, so you can treat them as one group. So if you are dealing with someone who has committed a second or third crime, you can assume they are in the 20% who commit most crimes. And therefore you should apply severe penalties. I don't know where you got "more than half of the 20 are first-timers." That is simply impossible: by definition, no one is in the 20% if they are a first-timer. You can read more about the Pareto Principle here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle From Wikipedia: "The Pareto principle (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes." This has been proven to apply to crime. Roughly 80% of crimes are committed by 20% of the people who break the law.
tptacek 11y ago
Didn't crime rates famously fall in the 1990s?
- Devthrowaway80 11y ago
  Don't bring facts into this!
- harryh 11y ago
  Per capita murder rates in the US peaked at 9.8 (per 100k) in 1991 and we still close to that peak at 9.5 when CA passed their three strikes law in 1993. Edit: actually 1991 was a local maxima. It was exceeded by a bit in the early 80s. Still though these laws were definitely passed when crime was quite high.
- dhimes 11y ago
  It looks like crime rates rose- even sharply- in the first part of the decade, then fell (if this source can be believed). http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=154 http://www.data360.org/graph_group.aspx?Graph_Group_Id=154
Spellman 11y ago
Also, at the national level, the Three Strikes came around when most of America was in the middle of a lot of drug-related violence. So the Three Strikes rule, plus the War on Drugs, plus the Kingpin laws were used with extreme prejudice to try and curtail the panic. Granted, now we have the benefit of hindsight and statistics to see how effective those have been. Getting rid of several heads of crime rings? Exceptionally well. Just watch Gangsters: America's Most Evil from A&E. Every single person came from that era. How well has it worked on drugs in general or crime rates? That's much more debatable. EDIT: typo