The Controversy Continues: The 2012 Massachusetts “Three-Strikes” Law

Few criminal justice topics generate more controversy than society’s views on “three- strikes” laws which require mandatory minimum sentences – usually just for violent crimes. Many states and the federal government have passed such laws in hopes that they will decrease recidivism – the tendency of many criminals to keep committing new crimes.

Major Influences on the Signing of the Massachusetts Legislation

A key impetus for the 2012 signing of “Melissa’s Bill” was the case involving “a young Massachusetts teacher who was kidnapped, raped and murdered in 1999 by a repeat violent offender out on parole.” Added momentum for the bill developed after John Maguire, “a veteran police officer in Woburn was killed by a repeat offender in 2010 who was on parole after being sentenced to three life sentences.” These events were preceded by countless others in Massachusetts and around the country, including the high-profile case of Polly Klaas, the young 12-year-old California girl who was kidnapped and murdered by a repeat offender out on parole.                        

Critics of these bills often claim that the sensationalized nature of these crimes caused both the public and legislators too overcompensate by passing “three-strike” laws. And with good reason.                                                     

Three-Strike Laws Don’t Reduce Crime And Cause Additional Problems

• There is No Evidence of a Deterrent Effect. Many lawmakers mistakenly believe that you can dissuade criminals from repeating their crimes if they know that after a “third strike,” they’ll be put away for a very long period of time. But one recent study conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of California’s three-strikes law clearly indicates that it’s not having the desired deterrent effect. And there is little reason to believe things will be different in Massachusetts. The fact is that someone about to commit a violent crime simply isn't thinking of the consequences of getting caught.

• Opponents Regularly Argue Against the Costs of Such Programs.  Prisons are extremely expensive. Of course, if it is necessary for reasons of public safely to keep a person incarcerated, then it should be done. But it should always be a judgement call as to what is appropriate considering the totality of the facts and circumstances. That is why judges are given wide sentencing guidelines under most laws.
• Such Laws Could Be Unnecessary if All Prisons Offered Quality Job Training, Psychiatric Treatment and Addiction Services to Inmates. Some opponents of  three-strike laws believe that if society truly values its safety, taxpayers should be willing to provide all inmates sufficient prison services so they can be released earlier, fully prepared to find lawful work – without undue burdens from addictions or untreated mental health problems;
• Trusting the Discretion of Judges on the Bench. Both sides of this issue will often admit that long before three-strike laws were ever proposed, sitting judges were given the discretion to review each accused person’s prior record and sentence the individual to an appropriate amount of time behind bars. This approach helped protect some offenders whose prior crimes were not all felonies or who had significant mental deficits that made it hard for them to fully understand the consequences of their repetitive actions.

There are no easy solutions when dealing with criminal offenders with multiple convictions. But we need to take a smart and balanced approach that protects public safety from violent and dangerous criminals, and helps non-violence criminals serve their time and re-integrate into society. Three strikes mandates are antithetical to that objective. 

Russell Matson is a Criminal Defense Lawyer in Braintree. His website is madrunkdrivingdefense.com.