ABSTRACT
Proponents of three-strike laws argue that the criminal justice system should place repeat offenders in prison and throw away the key, as they have demonstrated that they are dangerous to society and unwilling to change. Supporters also assert that three-strike laws will save money in the long term by reducing victimization and the costs that crime inflicts on society as a whole. Opponents of three-strike laws argue that the increased incarceration of repeat offenders will have little effect on violent crime rates. Moreover, life terms for three-strikes offenders means that prison space is allocated to a population of offenders who are beyond their peak ages for criminal conduct. Opponents of three- strikes laws argue that tax money could be spent more effectively in areas that address the root causes of crime rather than only its end result. The justice system must consider how three-strike laws will affect the criminal mind-set.
