threestrikes law has placed 1,300 people in prison for a third strike offense and14,000 people in prison on a second strike offense(1). The current recidivismrate in California is 70%(2), which means that out of those 14,000 people thatalmost 10,000 will be back in prison for a third strike. To imprison those1,300 third strike offenders for the mandatory minimum of twenty-five yearswill cost the state of California $812,500,000. To support these inmates forlonger periods of time we will have to increase the amount of money going toour prison system. This means that either spending in other areas will be cutor an increase of taxes. Neither of which is highly favored by voters. On anational level the Justice Departments budget has increased an alarming 162%since 1987(Cost 2). The money that is being spent incarcerating these peoplecan be more well spent in other areas. The money can be spent on crimeprevention and rehabilitation, rather than retribution. Before the threestrikes law was enacted it had been estimated that to keep up with the growingprison population on a national level that it was necessary to spend$100,000,000 per week on our prison system(Ogutu). Now that we will be havingmore and more criminals behind bars we shall have to spend even more moneybuilding and keeping up our overcrowded prisons. Of these people thattaxpayers are paying to imprison Mauer suggests that as many as 80% will benon-violent offenders. So far 80% of the second and third strike offenses havebeen for non-violent crimes, most of these being drug offenses(23). There haveonly been only 53 people with second and third strike convictions for rape,murder, and kidnapping(Carter 1). This law's lack of effectiveness clearlydoes not warrant its huge price.The other aspect to consider in the implementation of the three strikeslegislation is its effect on non-violent offenders. These are the peoplehardest hit by this law. It is difficult see how so...
