If you look at California, and I picked one state for simplicity, it really did help crime rates. I have inserted a chart of crime rates, and the vertical line represents the enactment of the 3 strike rule. Though it works in California, where violent and dangerous felonies are committed at a much higher rate, I'm not convinced that this wouldn't help here in Iowa as well. Many of the arguments against this are the example of someone bouncing three checks and spending life in prison. If the law is structured like California, that would not be the case. A retrospective study of the law showed that there are only certain felonies that count as strikes. In addition, strikes could be obtained through convictions in other states, if that strike would qualify within the State of California. My support of a law like this is dependent of a similar structure.
Another argument is a constitutional one. On March 5. 2003 the law was upheld by the supreme court in Ewing v. California, and also denied a writ of habeas corpus that same year. It upheld that this is not cruel and unusual punishment, and I tend to agree.
Finally, the decrease in crime has caused a decrease in prison population. The perceived overcrowding issue that seemed to be an argument to not pass the law, never happened. The estimate of dollars saved due to the decreased crime rate was roughly 28.5 billion in the ten years following the enactment of the law.
Now to my own dissent. The idea of banishing someone from the state is absolutely ludicrous. It to me seems like a second chance to get it right. A criminal can simply take the deal, live in Rock Island, and continue to commit crime in Davenport until they are caught. Where this idea came from, I don’t know, but I’m sure that our neighboring states certainly won’t appreciate it, and I’m sure Iowa is not the place we want as the ‘Australia of the US.’
Finally, the decrease in crime has caused a decrease in prison population. The perceived overcrowding issue that seemed to be an argument to not pass the law, never happened. The estimate of dollars saved due to the decreased crime rate was roughly 28.5 billion in the ten years following the enactment of the law.
Now to my own dissent. The idea of banishing someone from the state is absolutely ludicrous. It to me seems like a second chance to get it right. A criminal can simply take the deal, live in Rock Island, and continue to commit crime in Davenport until they are caught. Where this idea came from, I don’t know, but I’m sure that our neighboring states certainly won’t appreciate it, and I’m sure Iowa is not the place we want as the ‘Australia of the US.’
Links:
