Three strikes and your out has been the rule in baseball for over 100 years. While some baseball player and people (especially in this area) who are obsessive baseball fans lives can depend on the strike calls on the baseball diamond, the three strikes and your out law in California has a lot more important real life consequences. The three strikes law basically says that if someone has three felony convictions then they will get sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for twenty-five years. The idea behind the law is that criminals who habitually commit felonies should be taken off the street. While that law might seem to be rather mundane on the surface, three strikes laws are quite a radical departure from what is the normative form of punishment of this country. But how did California’s three strikes law come into place? In the following paragraphs I going to discuss how the law came to be and the motives of the people who helped create and maintain the law.

            People who go out of their way to influence legislation to create new rules don’t feel like the current laws don’t adequately disseminate justice and or protect the people properly. For the three strikes law, the two rule creators whose fervor most led to the creation of the three strikes laws were Marc Klauss and Mike Reynolds. Both Klauss and Reynolds both suffered the tragedy of having their daughters murdered by men who were habitual offenders and thus truly believed that three strikes type legislation would promote the greater good for society. While other people who propose legislation might be looked at with cynical eyes by the public, both Klauss and Reynolds were correctly scene by the public as having pure motives that were based in their own respective personal tragedies. The personal tragedy that both men had to deal with in their lives, also put the public in a state of focus on serious crimes committed by habitual offenders and thus made the people of California looking for ideas to help them protect themselves from the perceived danger.

            In addition to having pure motives, Klauss and Reynolds resembled the typical rule creators in many other ways. Both were well at the very least upper middle class, well spoken, and clean cut looking white males. Thus, not only did they derive influence and power from the perceived morality of their position and personal tragic losses, but also from the fact that they already had the status of being part of the dominant socio-economic spheres of society.

            While Klauss and Reynolds motives may have been pure, others who had less then pure motives and interests quickly glommed on to the idea of a three strikes law for their own personal benefit. One of the first groups to benefit is “experts” who could weigh in on the proposed  laws. Lawyers and other experts in laws and legislation could gain money and influence by being involved in the writing of the newly proposed laws. Sociologist, Criminologists, and other groups of professionals that might be considered experts on the issue could give their view as to why the laws were good for society. Not only that, but they might be hired to conduct studies and do research that would show how the new three strikes legislation could be helpful to society.

            Politicians and other elected officials also used the three strikes law for their personal gain. A D.A. in California was quoted as saying “we need to do something because people are tired of being scared.” Being able to comment on the three strikes legislation gave the D.A. more publicity and face recognition which would help then either attain his current office or possibly seek a higher political office.

            The rule enforcers of the three strikes legislation however like all new laws did not fall on Klaus and Reynolds, the experts who helped write the laws, or the other politicians who were instrumental in the legislation passing, but by police officers and prosecutors. Police officers like any other profession want to have respect for what they do. The three strikes laws allow police officers to feel that they are getting serious criminals off the streets and thus feel proud that they accomplishing something important for society. The constant evil acts that a police officer witnesses might also make him or her feel like rehabilitations is not possible and further justify in their minds that three strikes laws that take habitual offenders off the streets are helpful to society. On the other hand, police officers are many times pragmatic and take a detached view of their jobs.  If all habitual offenders were locked up for 25 years to life, that could lead to two negative consequences for them. One, the enforcement of the law fails to result in a drop in crime thus making the law and any extra power and they respect they get from it useless. Two, the enforcement of the law succeeds to the point where crime drops low enough that the public believes that the need for a lot of police is not as high as it used to be and thus lead to police officer lay offs.

            Prosecutors have a lot of discretion in how aggressively they decide to prosecute three strike offenders. This is evident in the fact that three strike cases are prosecuted at much higher levels in Las Angeles then in San Francisco. In addition, in order to increase their conviction rates and the stats of the number of people they have put away via the three strike laws, prosecutors might go after poorer low level criminals who ability to defend themselves in a court of law is lacking compared to other richer people who might be able to fight the cases and thus are not pursued as aggressively by police or prosecutors.