Page 206 - Essencials of Sociology

Reactions to Deviance 179

thinKinG CritiCAlly

“Three Strikes and You’re Out!” unintended
Consequences of Well-intended Laws

s the violent crime rate soared in the 1980s, Americans grew fearful. They
demanded that their lawmakers do something. Politicians heard the mes-
Asage, and many responded by passing “three-strikes” laws in their states.
Anyone who is convicted of a third felony receives an automatic mandatory sen-
tence. Although some mandatory sentences carry life imprisonment, judges are not
allowed to consider the circumstances. While few of us would feel sympathy if a
man convicted of a third brutal rape or a third murder were sent to prison for life,
in their haste to appease the public the politicians did not limit the three-strike laws
to violent crimes.
And they did not consider that some minor crimes are considered felonies. As the
functionalists would say, this has led to unintended consequences. Here are some actual
cases:
• In Los Angeles, a 64-year-old man who stole a package of cigarettes was sentenced
to 25-years-to-life in prison (Phillips 2013).
• In Sacramento, a man passed himself off as Tiger Woods and went on a $17,000
shopping spree. He was sentenced to 200 years in prison (Reuters 2001).
• Also in California, Michael James passed a bad check for $94. He was sentenced
to 25 years to life (Jones 2008).
• A Florida man put a lockbox with cocaine in his girlfriend’s attic. He was sentenced
to 15 years in prison, but his girlfriend, a 27-year-old mother of three, was sent
to prison for life. The judge said the sentence was unjust, but he had no choice
(Tierney 2012).
• In New York City, a man who was about to be sentenced for selling crack said
to the judge, “I’m only 19. This is terrible.” He then hurled himself out of a
courtroom window, plunging to his death sixteen stories below (Cloud 1998).

For Your Consideration
Apply the symbolic interactionist, functionalist, and conflict perspectives to the three-
↑
strikes laws. For symbolic interactionism, what do these laws represent to the public?
How does your answer differ depending on what part of “the public” you are referring
to? For functionalism, who benefits from these laws? What are some of the functions of
three-strikes laws? Their dysfunctions? For the conflict perspective, which groups are in
conflict? Who has the power to enforce their will on others?
With the economic crisis, some states have concluded that they can’t afford to lock so
↑
many people up. California is releasing some prisoners whose third crime was not violent
(Phillips 2013). What is your opinion of this? ■

The Decline in Violent Crime
As you have seen, judges have put more and more people in prison, and legisla-
tors have passed the three-strikes laws. As these changes took place, the crime rate
dropped sharply. Sociologists conclude that getting tough on criminals reduced
crime, but it is only one of the reasons that violent crime dropped (Baumer and
Wolff 2013). Other reasons include higher employment, less illegal drug use, a lower
birth rate, and even abortion. There are even those who say that the best explanation
is the elimination of lead in gasoline (Drum 2013). We can rule out employment:
When the unemployment rate shot up with the economic crisis, the lower crime
rates continued (Oppel 2011). This matter is not yet settled. We’ll see what answers
future research brings.