Three Strikes Law: Penal Extremism and Draconian Rhetoric

In our modern political history, there has been a separation between the two main political parties, the Democrats and Republicans, on virtually every major issue that has surfaced in our society aside from incarceration, which was emphasized by Democrat Bill Clinton’s introduction of the Three Strikes Law at the beginning of his term in 1994. The logistics of the Three Strikes Law are that once a criminal has been convicted of two violent/serious crimes, once they are convicted of a third felony then they will be sentenced to anything between a 25 year sentence and life sentence; the Three Strikes philosophy is that the policy would heavily diminish crime rates in the area of its implementation. California, known as one of the most liberal and progressive states in the country, implemented the most extreme version of Three Strikes where the third strike did not just need to be a felony, but could also be a misdemeanor of any level as long as the first two strikes were violent/serious. This essay argues against the implementation of Three Strikes and focuses on the negative ramifications of such an unjust policy, specifically in California, with it resulting in prisons being overcrowded, penal funding being increased, the court system being clogged and an overall drastic increase in incarceration rates post-1994