This post is for my peace of mind. I have previously expressed reservations about the Three Strikes Policy shortly going before select committee. The law of unintended consequences is perhaps the one we ignore, at our peril, the most. So I decided, while I have some free time, I would take a closer look.
Now I know that if I go looking for studies that discredit the US welfare reforms I can find them. I can also find the converse.
So, I expect to find knockers of three strikes and I expect to find fans.
Here is a site dedicated to opposing. Below, a couple of the many reasons it cites;
# Kovandzic, Tomislav V; John J Sloan III, Lynne M Vieraitis. ""STRIKING OUT" AS CRIME REDUCTION POLICY: THE IMPACT OF "THREE STRIKES" LAWS ON CRIME RATES IN U.S. CITIES. " Justice Quarterly : JQ 21.2 (2004): 207-239.
Summarizes several studies showing that homicide rates have declined at a 10-12% slower rate in jurisdictions with 3-Strikes laws.
# Marvell, T., Moody, C. (2001). The lethal effects of three strikes law. Journal of Legal Studies, 30 (1): 89-106.
Finds that Three Strikes laws have had a minimal impact on reducing the levels of crime and through deterrence or incapacitation but that they are associated with 10%-12% more homicides in the short run and 23%-29% more in the long run in almost all 24 states examined with Three Strikes laws.
It was harder to find proponents but here is one from Washington;
Our state's three-strikes law, the nation's first, was designed to nail two kinds of criminals: first, the violent predators and, second, those who commit lesser but far more numerous crimes over and over again. But the law's chief benefit is the amount of crime it deters from felons with one or two strikes already on their record. When a third conviction means life behind bars, many legally-challenged citizens resist the temptation to commit that third offense. Of those who don't shape up, many simply move away. This helps explain that while violent crime rates have plummeted nearly 30 percent since "three strikes" became law in 1993, only about 26 felons "strike out" each year.
Opponents had predicted nearly four times that number would do so. They assumed that changing the law would not change criminal behavior. They were mistaken. Ask any street cop. Their street-level insights are far more valuable and relevant than those of academics and politicians.
So what about some statistics from Washington (State). I looked at murder and rape because these are two of the crimes the introduction of three strikes is targeted at in this country;
Murder
1998 234
1999 171
2000 196
2001 179
2002 184
2003 182
2004 190
2005 205
2006 190
2007 173
Rape
1998 2740
1999 2711
2000 2737
2001 2600
2002 2734
2003 2863
2004 2857
2005 2811
2006 2746
2007 2629
So, taking into account population growth, there has been a slight improvement. Slight.
Let's look next at violent crime in California, which has the toughest three strikes regime;
Murder
1998 2171
1999 2005
2000 2079
2001 2206
2002 2395
2003 2407
2004 2392
2005 2503
2006 2485
2007 2260
Rape
1998 9782
1999 9363
2000 9785
2001 9960
2002 10198
2003 9994
2004 9615
2005 9392
2006 9212
2007 9013
Again the rates have dropped slightly but I am not overwhelmed.
Illinois has no three strikes policy. Their statistics:
Murder
1998 1008
1999 939
2000 891
2001 982
2002 961
2003 895
2004 780
2005 770
2006 780
2007 752
Rape
1998 4095
1999 4297
2000 4090
2001 4010
2002 4370
2003 4189
2004 4220
2005 4313
2006 4078
2007 4103
Same sort of picture. Another three-strike free state, New York, shows a similar pattern.
As fas as I can ascertain just over half have a three strikes policy yet the violent crime rate has declined across the United States (but has stuck over the last couple of years.)
I can't convince myself that the Three Strikes policy will do what I most want it to - deter serious crime. Additionally there appears to be a very real danger that it makes criminals more violent.
RMA changes end war on farming
47 minutes ago
19 comments:
In isolation these don't mean a whole lot. Crime in the entire US has come down for numerous reasons. So even a slight improvement in crime rates could be similar to what other states experienced. I know that when NYC tried the "broken window" policy crime went down, but when it compared to other major cities, the downward trend was actually less than what should have happened.
A few thoughts:
1. I have never thought of this as a deterrent. The goal is to prevent crime by taking hardened criminals off the street, not that they will refrain from crime because of the higher sentence. Our prisons are too comfortable to function as a deterrent.
2. ACT's policy is so different from the US one that they are not comparable. The only similarity is the name. Also US sentences in the states without three strikes are already longer than ours. Even if the bill passes, NZ will still be more analagous to the non-three strikes states.
3. With ACT's policy, the third strike will only be triggered by a serious offence that, in the US, would have attracted a long prison sentence anyway. And the US only introduced three strikes in the mid 90s. So in most of the cases that are comparable, the person would probably have been in prison with or without three strikes in most of those years.
4. The crime reduction in the states without three strikes wouldn't necessarily have been achievable elsewhere without three strikes. There is a big difference between states and each state's choice to have or not have three strikes was made for a reason.
US prisons are not so comfortable and still don't act as a deterrent. The death penalty doesn't deter. The US seems to have given up on deterring. So have we no choice but to go down the same road?
If 3 strikes won't deter then we are facing soaring prison musters as more dysfunctional families create more dysfunctional amoral children (which is why I always come back to welfare reform).
US state policies also differ, sometimes significantly, from each other. The policy proposed here is very different from that operating in California, granted. Perhaps not so dissimilar to some other states though.
No one policy on its own will make a significant difference.
Surely a range of initiatives have more chance as some crims might react positively to one but not others.
If one law worked, we would only need one.
The best study I've seen on California's 3-strikes law is that done by Joanna Shepherd in the Journal of Legal Studies, 2001(?). A google scholar search should bring it up handily. Watch Iyengar's critique though (again, google scholar).
I am the author of ACT's "three strikes" Bill, now merged into National's Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill.
Firstly, the crime stats you cite from California do not accord at all with stats I have, which come from the California Department of Corrections.
Homicides - which of course includes murder of all degrees, and manslaughter in various degrees - totalled 4,095 in 1993, the year before California's Three Strikes law was passed. Ten years later, homicides were 2,392.
Over the same period Robbery went from 126,347 in 1993, to 64,805 in 2002. There was a lesser reduction in rapes over the same period.
Your point is well made that crime rates were decreasing in California and other US states prior to 1994. But the slope on the graphs of all crimes in California since 1994 shows a much steeper decline that prior to 1994, despite the fact that California's population increased by one third over the same period.
This would seem to suggest that there has been a very significant incapacitation effect in that - to take the homicide figures - there has been a reduction of 50% since the Three Strikes law was introduced.
As Nigel Kearney has pointed out, one of the major aims of such legislation is simply incapacitation - locking up violent criminals before they get the chance to graduate to homicide.
The figure of 78 killers behind bars in NZ who, at the time they killed, had served at least three prior sentences for violence has never been challenged, either during the election campaign or in parliament.
That is for the very good reason that I have OIA responses that confirm that figure is correct.
It is unarguable that those killers would not have had a chance to kill if, at the time they killed their victim, there was a three strikes law in place. They could not have killed because they would have been in jail.
It is also quite incorrect that there is no evidence of a three strikes deterrent effect. The explanatory note to the bill itself contains reference to one such paper which purports to show a 17-20% deterrent effect on second strikers. There are many other such papers.
Will it work here? Certainly as incapacitation, as the 78 killers stat shows. If this bill passes there will be no future William Bell's, who had 102 previous convctions before he murdered three people at the Panmure RSA.
Will it deter others? Who knows? Although we are in many ways similar to the US we are different countries. Frankly, I don't think it matters very much. It will definitely save lives through incapacitation.
Why have a three strikes Bill anyway? If the purpose is to keep repeat offenders in prison for a long time a simple solution would be to do away with concurrent sentencing. This would mean an offender would serve a separate sentence for each offence, the sentences to be served cumulatively.
Lindsay: "I can't convince myself that the Three Strikes policy will do what I most want it to - deter serious crime. Additionally there appears to be a very real danger that it makes criminals more violent."
Garrett: "The figure of 78 killers behind bars in NZ who, at the time they killed, had served at least three prior sentences for violence has never been challenged,......"
Garrett again: "Will it work here? Certainly as incapacitation, as the 78 killers stat shows. If this bill passes there will be no future William Bell's, who had 102 previous convctions before he murdered three people at the Panmure RSA."
Garrett's reasoning seems fairly compelling.
David, What is your response to the suggestion that when criminals are facing their third strike, a final criminal act may very well escalate? I was recently on a panel with Greg O'Connor (I was the only one who spoke in support of three strikes from the perspective of protecting potential victims) whose main concern was this eventuality. I assume the Police will be submitting at select committee.
Regarding a deterrent effect, yes I have seen such papers and the one I have linked to from National Bureau of Economic Research finds there is. But it also finds, "Among third-strike eligible offenders, the probability of committing violent crimes increased by 9 percentage points."
You said regarding California,"Over the same period Robbery went from 126,347 in 1993, to 64,805 in 2002."
In 2007 the figure was 70,542. I make that point because US crime was at an extraordinarily high rate in the early nineties. Incapacitation initially brought it down quite sharply but the decline then became much shallower and nationally, violent crime has risen over the last two years. I only looked at the last ten years of statistics because I wanted to see if there was an ongoing effect.
You may argue that if we could achieve the same early effect it would be worth it but again, the reduction happened in states that didn't have a three strikes policy.
Also that current Californian robbery rate is 193 per 100,000 compared to 62 per 100,000 in NZ. The homicide rate is 6.18 per 100,000 compared to 2.6 in NZ. Perhaps there are definitional differences. But even with the harshest three strikes policy California is still a more dangerous place than NZ.
Lindsay: ".....What is your response to the suggestion that when criminals are facing their third strike, a final criminal act may very well escalate?"
Valid point,Lindsay.
This has always been the argument against raising the sentence for rape to the point where the victim is killed to reduce the offender's chances of being identified.
Mark.V : "Why have a three strikes Bill anyway? ........ a simple solution would be to do away with concurrent sentencing."
Some validity, but this could be a slower process if only one crime is committed at that time of prosecution.
But effective where there are multiple serious crimes prosecuted.
And Lindsay's concern about the severity of the final crime, perhaps to hinder detection, would also come into play.
I have commented before that I don't like some of ACT's pro police power and anti civil liberties statements. However, I do believe that the arguments for 3 strikes are compelling and Nigel and David have expressed them well.
As for O'Conner, Finlayson, and the Crown Law Office - the current revolving door policy is particulary lucrative for almost everyone involved in the criminal justice system. It is a perverted morality which demands that violent persons be free to choose victims at will.
You are of course correct Lindsay in pointing at the welfare system (I would go further and say that this in turn is a consequence of compulsory state education). However, these underlying causes won't be addressed soon. In the meantime 3 strikes is a wise move.
Dave Christian
Regarding Lindsay's latest post...the possibility of "escalation" of the third strike offence because of the consequences (the "we might as well kill her as well as rape her" argument) is a valid objection, and some academics have made it. There is equally evidence (both empirical and anecotal) which suggests significant numbers of second strikers avoid incurring any kind of third strike because of the consequences.
One not particularly palatable but nevertheless valid argument is the utilitarian; if escalation occurs in a very small number of cases, but the overall result is a sharp reduction in violent crime, maybe that is a price society must be prepared to pay.
As for the latest robbery stats, two points. Firstly bear in mind that since 1994 California's population has increased by more than 30%. Thus even the numbers staying the same or roughly the same is in effect a decrease in real terms.
Secondly, the population of California is 35 million or so, and we are talking about a 6,000 offence difference - that is proportionately quite small.
Lastly I have never suggested - and ACT as party is not seeking to claim now - that this measure will eliminate all violent crime. It is but another tool which will certainly have a significant incapacitation impact at the very least.
David, California's population has increased by 17 percent since 1994 - not over 30 percent.
I have already agreed that California's overall violence index is dropping but the homicide rate is stuck. For every year since 1998 it has been between 6 and 7 per 100,000. Which means that people are committing the ultimate act of violence in spite of or because of the three strikes law.
I don't know where the figure you quote of 6,000 offences comes from.
Thinking about it...if someone has the nerve to murder someone he just raped to cover himself I would suggest that person is likely to kill some one some time anyway...there has to be a serious mental step up from rape (indulging in a criminal act for the purpose of sexual gratification...however warped)to killing someone.
I submit that the people who can make that step are people we need out of society regardless.
If not their rape victim then someone else sometime later...what is the best bet?
Excellent post and comments Lindsay. I couldn't agree more.
I will forward this to others who are interested in starting a truly libertarian party, as opposed to joining increasingly authoritarian ones ie Libz and ACT.
Ruth....please lay out the principles and foundations of your "ideal Libertarian party....Im fascinated.
From what I have read you advocate some very un-libertarian stuff yourself.
David Garrett at 12.38pm makes two excellent observations:
" There is equally evidence (both empirical and anecotal) which suggests significant numbers of second strikers avoid incurring any kind of third strike because of the consequences."
and:
".......if escalation occurs in a very small number of cases, but the overall result is a sharp reduction in violent crime, maybe that is a price society must be prepared to pay."
So there is a reduction in third time offenders.
And the really bad guys get locked away after three offences,albeit an escalated third offence,but sparing society of the other 100 crimes before they commit their final "William Bell".
Sounding even more compelling.
I think appropriate force for punishment is being confused with defensive force.
Given this there is no conflict with the bill and the doctrine of proportionality.
Three Strikes: Proportion and Protection
Madeleine's article is exellent and warrants wider coverage. David Garrett should go and read it.
Post a Comment