California's Three Strikes Law: Balancing Crime Prevention and Justice Reform
Artwork by Sierra Randel.
On March 12, 2000, a man named Gary Ewick concealed three golf clubs worth $399 each by placing them up his pants leg and walked out of a Los Angeles-area golf course. Upon discovery, an employee phoned the police, leading to Ewick’s subsequent conviction and a required 25 years to life in prison. How did stealing $1200 worth of golf clubs warrant a potential life sentence in prison?
The court took Ewick’s prior felonies into account. Ten years earlier, Ewick had been found guilty of robbery and three instances of residential burglary, classified as a “serious or violent felony” under California law. He had been on parole for just 10 months when he stole the golf clubs in Los Angeles. While stealing golf clubs would typically be classified as a misdemeanor, it was elevated to a potential life sentence under California's “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law.
This law, which sparked considerable controversy following the years after its implementation, fundamentally altered California’s justice system. It mandates extending prison terms for repeat offenders, adding on prison time for individuals with prior convictions for serious or violent felonies, which include robbery, kidnapping, murder, rape, arson, or any offense involving a weapon. Once the individual has a serious felony on their record, any subsequent felony, regardless of its severity, will be punished under the Three Strikes Law, resulting in heightened prison time for the individual.
Proponents of the bill contend that repeat offenders continue their patterns because they are undeterred by the prospect of serving time in prison. They are denoted as “unresponsive to incarceration” as a mechanism for altering their behavior. Following this logic, increasing sentence lengths keep repeat offenders in prison longer, increasing the safety of California communities. Additionally, the more severe punishment was thought to scare and deter offenders from committing a crime in the first place.
The Three Strikes law altered how criminal sentences were determined, ultimately serving to lengthen sentences for nearly 60,000 prison admits since 2015. Compared to similar Three Strike laws across the United States, California’s legislation stands out for its potency. It encompasses a wider spectrum of offenses that qualify as felonies, including petty theft with a prior to possession of drugs to murder. It also mandates that for the second strike, the sentence length be doubled, irrespective of whether the subsequent felony is categorized as violent or serious (assuming the first felony was violent or serious).
Often, many of those whose sentences increased due to the Three Strikes law were actually convicted of non-serious, non-violent offenses, as seen in Ewing’s case. This has caused frustration and anger among Californians, and in November 2004, California voters considered Prop 66 which would have reformed the Three Strikes Law to remove several crimes from being considered “violent or serious offenses”, exempting less serious crimes from counting towards the first strike within the three strikes law. While it didn’t pass, Prop 66 garnered 47% support, suggesting that a large portion of Californians agree that the law needs to be reformed.
The Three Strikes Law has faced legal challenges as well. In 2003, Ewing's case reached the Supreme Court. However, once again, the Supreme Court upheld the Three Strikes Law, with a division based on ideology.
In Ewing v. California the plaintiff argued the punishment was disproportionate to the crime committed, violating Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. They argued that stealing just over $1,000 worth of golf clubs shouldn’t warrant a sentence of up to life in prison.
Yet the court sided with the bill's authors, arguing that Ewing’s conviction was justified by the state’s interest in protecting public safety, and “deterring recidivist felons”. According to the majority opinion, Ewing’s long history of criminal offenses justified an enhanced sentence in the name of protecting public safety and reducing serious and violent crimes.
Progressive Democrats have led California towards reformation, making efforts to move away from a system of mass incarceration. Tension between California Democrats and Republicans reflect a fight seen across the rest of the nation, with Republicans tending to favor a tough on crime approach, and Democrats advocating to address racial inequalities within the criminal justice system.
Over two decades later, the policy discourse concerning the Three Strikes Law continues to have salience in the California legislature. A recent example of this ongoing debate is Senate Bill (SB) 14 drafted by Senator Shannon Grove, one of the most conservative members of the California Senate. SB 14 proposes adding human trafficking of a minor to California’s list of serious and violent felonies, thereby adding another felony towards the state’s Three Strikes policy.
Child trafficking has shockingly been classified as a “misdemeanor” under California’s law, and according to the bill’s proponents, this has allowed those behind human trafficking to run free without serious consequences. The bill's author made its intent very clear: to specifically address individuals engaged in the trafficking and sale of California's children. Senator Grove brought in human trafficking victims to testify in committee, justifying the necessity of the bill.
While SB 14 easily passed the Democratic-majority Senate with unanimous support, progress quickly ground to a halt when six Democrats on the Assembly Public Safety Committee refused to support the bill, effectively killing it in committee.
The current members on the Assembly Public Safety Committee have a reputation for obstructing bills that seek to increase prison sentences. Chair Reggie Jones-Sawyer, an advocate for criminal justice and corrections reform and ending the school-to-prison pipeline, has often faced criticism from both moderate California Democrats and Republicans for his refusal to support bills that up prison sentences.
Upon blocking the bill in committee, people in the audience were heard yelling “you’re horrible!” and “you should be ashamed of yourselves!” to the six Democratic members of the committee. The chaos continued on Twitter with opponents of the bill getting threatened online. In a rare occurrence, Governor Newsom held a press briefing, showing support for the bill. Even Elon Musk vocalized on Twitter how ridiculous it was for the committee to block this “common sense” bill, noting that child human trafficking should already be considered a serious felony.
In a frantic effort to appease the backlash, the Assembly Public Safety Committee held an emergency meeting. They voted again, this time with four out of the six Democrats changing their vote to pass the bill through the committee to save face, allowing the bill to move towards its last committee, and then to the Assembly floor.
The rocky passage of SB 14 reveals a prolonged tension between fighting crime and appeasing the call of social justice. Many progressives, especially in recent years, make an effort to challenge biases and rehabilitation within the criminal justice system. Conservatives push for going tough on crime, taking an approach they feel makes communities safer. Yet SB 14 is unique because it represents a middle point between these two ideologies. It received bipartisan support, notably with both Governor Newsom’s support and the conservative author, Shannon Grove. Yet its turbulent journey to becoming a law demonstrates the difficulty California’s legislature has in finding middle ground.
Can we balance both of these important priorities as we move into the future? We most certainly can, but it will require our legislators to compromise, sometimes stepping back to take a moderate approach and critically analyze potential consequences of legislation before it is enacted. This is not solely the responsibility of our elected lawmakers, however, as the public plays a critical role in shaping the law making process. Without their vocal outrage, SB 14 would have never left committee. Without a doubt, our voices, our concerns and our hopes must be the driving force of the legislative process.