Public Issues
www.lyd.org- Email:[email protected]
No. 680 - June 25, 2004
ISSN 0717-1528
“Three Strikes and You’re Out”:
A Proposal on the Correct Direction
The proposal of the Mayor of Santiago,
A Serious Crime Problem in Chile
Joaquin Lavin to apply the “three strikes and
you’re out” model in Chile in relation to citizen
security has stirred up great controversy. The
Whatever the indicator used to determine the
model, similar to the one used in some states
seriousness of the crime problem in Chile
of the United States, consists of increasing
shows overwhelming results from two points of
penalties to backsliders. Emview. First, public opinion surpirical evidence has shown the
veys1 and the Urban National
3 strikes legislation has been
Poll on Citizen Security
successful in reducing crime in
The empirical evidence of the (ENUSC, the acronym in
California.
effects of this measure in the Spanish) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs–INE show that
Unfortunately, the Gov- United States–specifically in
crime has become the major
the state of California–is
ernment instead of considering,
promising. Moreover, there concern of Chilean people.
discussing and analyzing Mayor
Lavin’s proposals, has preferred are studies that hold that the
Second, the figures on
deterrent effect of this
to debate the issue through the
reporting of crimes of greater
legislation reaches not only
media and give it a political
social connotation2 show that
offenders
in
their
second
connotation, showing its lack of
between 1997 and 2003, for
strike; but all offenders.
ability to welcome proposals on
example, that indicator has
citizen security matters. This is
grown more than 100%. Roba particularly sensitive subject
beries3 have increased by
because criminality has steadily
369% over the same period.
increased over the past years and the policies
There is particular concern about robberto combat crime have proven to be ineffective.
ies in the Metropolitan Region. If the 40% inOne of the fundamental roles of the
crease recorded between 2002 and 2003 is
State–which is a cornerstone to establish a sorepeated in 2004, Santiago will have higher
ciety governed by the principles of freedom–is
robbery levels than the ones recorded in New
guaranteeing internal security to its citizens.
York in 1993, before the application of the Zero
In this regard, the mayor’s proposals are reTolerance Plan (Chart No.1). Also, between
lated to a social decision: where does society
1997 and 2003, denouncements of thefts have
want to have those people who repeatedly
increased by 142% y burglaries by 60%.
commit crimes.
In this issue:
•
•
“Three Strikes and You’re Out”: A Proposal in the Right Direction
Why Can’t We Overcome Unemployment?
1
include repeated victimization, crimes suffered
by youngsters under 15 years old and children
and people from districts other than the ones
surveyed.
Furthermore, the ENUSC showed that
victimization per homes was 45.5% in Chile.
The same survey shows high victimization levels in Chile, not only compared to developed
countries but in some crime categories also
with respect to other Latin American countries4.
Experience in California and the
United States
Finally, we may point out that if the reporting of crimes with greater social connotation provided by the Ministry of the Interior
quarterly is corrected for the denouncement
rates for each of the crimes–as obtained in the
ENUSC–we have that there were more than
900,000 real crimes of greater social connotation in 2003. This is equivalent to practically
2,500 crimes per day or 2 crimes per minute.
Since 1993, more than 20 States5, besides the Federal Government of the United
States in 1994, have opted for including the
“three strikes and you’re out” model in their legislations–taking the concept from baseball, one
of the Americans’ favorite games.
The California legislation included rules
both for the second and third strike. This
means that the offender strikes three when the
individual commits any offense after having
been condemned for committing two crimes
included in the list of the crimes that qualify for
a strike.
To this we must add that 30% of the individuals surveyed by the ENUSC declared
having been a victim of some kind of crime.
The survey is representative of 10,000,000
Chileans over 15 years old and of the 77 most
habited districts in the country. Therefore, we
are talking of the occurrence of 3,000,000
crimes of different types, a figure that does not
T a s a s p o r 1 0 0 .0 0 0 h b t e s .
Being declared “out”–or “strike three”–
means the following: when the
offender strikes two, he/she is
given an obligatory penalty that
Gráfico No. 1: Robo con Violencia R. Metropolitana y Nueva York
doubles the penalty assigned
Comparación Robo con Violencia R. Metropolitana contra Nueva York 1993-2004
for that crime. In turn, the penalty for the third strike implies a
900
perpetual sentence, the mini810,6
mum time of conviction being
800
778,8
746,65
the greatest between (i) three
714,5
700
times the period of time as600
597
signed to that specific offense;
579
540,8
(ii) 25 years or, (iii) the time
500
471,7
determined by the courts in the
428,2
426,6
424
400
new sentence6.
371,5
317,3
308,6
300
303,5
257
200
291,36
279,7
189,4
100
51,8
69,4
93
124,6
145
0
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
Nueva York
1999
2000
2001
2002
Región Metropolitana
2
2003
2004
(Chart No. 1 Robberies
in the Santiago Metropolitan
Area and New York - Comparison of Robberies in the Santiago Metropolitan Area and
New York 1993-2004)
0
20
0
19
82
8
19
9
19
80
6
19
9
19
78
2
0
4
19
9
19
76
19
9
8
19
9
6
19
8
4
19
8
2
19
8
0
19
8
8
19
8
250
200
150
100
50
3
20
00
19
98
19
96
19
94
19
92
19
90
19
88
19
86
19
84
19
74
19
72
19
70
19
68
19
66
19
64
19
60
0
19
62
6
19
7
Tasas por 100.000 hbtes.
4
2
0
8
6
4
2
Under the current law,
a criminal is “out” if he/she
commits any crime having
previously been sentenced
for serious crimes included
in the list that qualify for a
strike. In general, the distinction between violent and
serious crimes is given by
the degree of damage
19
7
19
7
19
7
19
7
19
6
19
6
19
6
19
6
19
6
0
Tasas por 100.000 hbtes.
caused to the victims. In
California, the former inGráfico N° 2: Criminalidad California 1960-2000
cludes homicide and rape,
Evolución 1960-2000 Indice de Criminalidad FBI de California
whereas serious crimes
include burglary of homes,
9000
assault with the intention
8000
of committing rape and
7000
sale of drugs to minors,
6000
among others. Likewise,
5000
the previous legislation
permitted reducing prison
4000
sentences by up to 50%
3000
for “good conduct” and
2000
“hard work”, whereas the
1000
new
legislation
limits
0
prison sentence reduction
to only 20%. In addition,
the new legislation is applied to youngsters at least
16 years old who commit
crimes, whereas the old legislation did not
(Chart No. 2: Crimes in California 1960stipulate that7.
2000 Evolution of Crime Rate in the 19602000 Period – FBI California)
From an empirical point of view, the application of the three strikes legislation in CaliBefore this legislation entered into force
in April 1994, California applied a series of rules for
backsliders. However, the
Gráfico N° 3: Robo con Violencia California 1960-2000
Evolución 1960-2000 Tasas de Robo con Violencia
“the three strikes” legislation
Estado de California
is much more stringent than
the old one. Under the old
450
legislation, a criminal was
400
“out” when he/she committed a violent crime if he/she
350
previously had been sen300
tenced for violent crimes.
a
Da
ko
t
a
So
ut
h
Fl
or
id
De
la
w
ar
e
Un
id
os
Es
ta
do
s
Je
rs
ey
*
Ne
w
us
et
ts
M
as
sa
ch
ar
yl
an
d*
M
rn
ia
*
Ca
lif
o
Yo
rk
Ne
w
Tasas por 100.000 hbtes.
On the other hand, if we
analyze
the impact of this legGráfico N°4: Índice Criminalidad FBI Estados Unidos 1993-1998
islation in the United Status
for the 1993-1998 period, in
Evolución Indice Criminalidad FBI 1993-1998
other words, the results of the
first four years after the legis40
34,9
lation started being applied,
30
we can see that three of the
five states that reduced the
17,5
20
crime rate most (California,
10,1
Maryland and New Jersey),
10
have the three strikes model9.
0
The state that reduced crime
rates the most was New York.
-10
-9,1
This can be explained by the
application of the Zero Toler-20
ance Plan developed in the
-23,9
-30
city of New York, which re-29,8
-31,3
-32,7
duced crime rates for the en-35,4
-40
tire State (Chart No. 4). We
must also point out that the
reduction for the rest of the
fornia has had the following results:
United Status is only 9.1% in the 1993-1998
period (Chart No.4 / Table No.1).
First, the crime rate started falling drastically in California in 1994 (FBI), and it has
(Chart No. 4: U.S.A. FBI Crime Rate
been determined that crime fell by 42% be1993-1998.
Evolution of the Crime Rate FBE
tween 1994 and 2000 to reach the levels it had
1993-1998.)
in 1960. In Chart No. 2 we can see that there
was a significant rise in crime until the ‘80s,
We must also consider the study conbetween the ‘80s and ‘90s crime leveled off
ducted by J. Shepherd (2002)–one of the most
and after 1994 we can see a significant drop.
important ones on this matter. This study conSecond, we can see a 56% reduction in robfirms that the deterrent effect of the three
beries between 1994 and 2000. Chart No. 3
clearly illustrates the trends of the 1960-1993
period and the 1994-2000 period.
Table No.1
FBI Variation Crime Rate 1993-1998
(Chart No. 3: Robberies in California
New York
-35,4%
1960-2000. Evolution of Robbery Rates in the
California*
-32,7%
1960-2000 period in the State of California).
Maryland*
Massachusetts
New Jersey*
United States
Delaware
Florida
South Dakota
Second, we estimate that in the 19941996 period, in other words the first two years
after the new legislation entered into force, the
deterring effect of that legislation–which reduced crimes by 400,000 (3,952 aggravated
assaults,10,672 robberies and 384,488 burglaries)–saved approximately US$ 889 million
to society8.
4
-31,3%
-29,8%
-23,9%
-9,1%
10,1%
17,5%
34,9%
The empirical evidence of the effects of
this measure in the United States–specifically
in the state of California–is promising. Moreover, when there are studies that hold that the
deterrent effect of this legislation reaches not
only offenders in their second strike; but all offenders•
strikes legislation not only applies to the offender who has already struck two– who, when
faced to the decision of committing or not the
third crime (thereby striking three and being
“out” if caught), which is called partial dissuasion–but also applies to those who are about to
commit the first or second crime10.
Conclusions
1
See CEP, December 2003.
Theft, burglary, robbery, robberies with intimidation, robberies by surprise, injuries, homicides and rape.
3
For these purposes, robberies are understood as
robberies, robberies with intimidation and robberies by
surprise. Disaggregation of these three kinds of robbery
categories was only done in April 2004, which does not
permit to make specific comparisons of these figures with
previous years.
4
See Public Issue No. 674, of May 14, 2004, Libertad y Desarrollo.
5
J. Shepherd talks of 26 states that have implemented this legislation in “Fear of the strike: The Full deterrent effect of California’s two and three strikes legislation”, Journal of Legal Studies, vol. XXXI, January 2002,
University of Chicago. The Crime Control Policy Center
reporting to the Hobson Institute in “The Impact of Three
Strikes Out, What was learned” talks of 23. This legislation has also been adopted at a federal level.
6
J.Shepperd, Op. Cit, p.162.
7
Ibid., pp.162-164.
8
J.Sheperd, Op. Cit.
9
Data for the district of Columbia has not been included.
10
J. Sheperd, Op. Cit.
2
The proposal of applying the “three
strikes and you’re out” model represents an
advance in the right direction to combat crime.
In fact, it is a strong signal for criminals that
every repeated offense will get a greater penalty.
The rationale of Mayor Lavin’s proposal
of applying the “three strikes and you’re out”
model is common sense: whoever commits a
crime once may have made a mistake and society wants him/her to rehabilitate; but, whoever commits a crime a second time must
clearly know that the penalty will be sufficiently
deterrent in order to put an end to a potential
“criminal profession”; the third crime shows that
the individual is simply not interested in abiding
society’s rules, despite the opportunities
he/she has been given and, therefore, society
has the right to get those individuals “out” for
an extended period.
5