"3 Strikes" Sentencing Laws Help Reduce Serious CrimeThe Three Strikes Law is a law first used in the 1990s and is an extension of the theory of rational choice, which allows a person to be sentenced to life in prison after their third strike. Should a minor crime receive the same punishment as a serious crime? California's three strikes law leaves no room for error in the criminal activity of repeat offenders. After committing three serious crimes, you are sentenced to twenty-five years to life in prison. How this affects our society and how the government responds to this law. Does this law really maintain public safety by imprisoning minor criminals, or are we simply spending billions on the prison system? What does it mean to be for or against, should this apply to everyone in all criminal situations, whether crimes are minor or serious? Why did lawmakers choose this as the punishment determination? According to John R. Schafer, he argues that “rigorous enforcement of three strikes laws is an effective crime control policy and can break the cycle of crime for young offenders” (Schafer, 1999). On the other hand, attorney Michael Vitiello states that “the three strikes law has failed to deliver on its promises to reduce serious crime. Furthermore, the costs of such laws appear to outweigh their benefits” (Vitiello, 2002). First, the deterrent effect of three strikes laws is to keep repeat offenders in prison for a long time. After the second conviction, if a person does not refrain from criminal activity, the person will receive the third strike. This law ensures that repeat offenders remain in prison and protects law-abiding citizens. The law also sends me a severe... half paper ......we were eating more and more money that we don't already have and that we could use for other things. http://www.balancedpolitics.org/ three_strikes.htm Finally the three strikes law is in fact a law and regardless of the crime, if a person chooses and continues to commit crimes they will be incarcerated and for some it will be a life sentence. Despite all the controversy behind this law, I still agree with Schafer. Breaking the cycle of crime in our youth would be the best choice. Keeping our young offenders out of prison would reduce the enormous price the state of California and taxpayers pay every year. Ultimately the most violent and dangerous criminals will continue to commit crimes regardless of the law. I believe this law continues to protect the normal everyday citizen and still prevents the minor criminal from committing certain crimes.