| significantly impact the specific or general effect of the law. Rather, family upbr affiliation, and offspring proved the most impo tant variables related to deterrence. The family had a positive influence on offenders, while gang affiliation produced a negative effect. Offenders raised in a home with both parents said they would be less likely to kill witnesses to avoid life in prison and more likely to be deterred by the three strikes laws. |
| Interestingly, offenders with children were less likely to be deterred by the three strikes law than offenders without children. Conventional thinking would suggest that offenders with children of their own would lead more responsible lives in an effort to care for their children; however, this was not the case. One explanation for this finding is that individuals who do not foresee the consequences of their actions routinely engage in risky behavior and so become more likely to have children as juveniles. |
| An overwhelming majority of the offenders who responded to the survey believed that the three strikes law was not fair and that offenders should receive more than three chances. During the postsurvey discussions with the offenders, most believed that the number of chances afforded offenders should equal one more than the number of crimes for which they themselves had been convicted. |
| Recommendations |
| In view of the findings of this study, additional data should be gathered from offenders in California, as well as other states, to determine if the results of this study are part of a greater phenomenon or spe�cific to the offenders surveyed. If these findings hold true, the consequences of three strikes law should be explained to offenders in specific terms, in order to maximize their deterrent effect. |
| In addition, as more states enact and enforce three strikes laws, the number of offenders willing to use violence to escape arrest likely will increase, as well. Accordingly, law enforcement officers should ap�proach suspects with extra caution and, whenever possible, should run. National Crime Information Center and criminal history checks
ing suspects. |
|
Offender Demograhpic and
Socioeconomic Data |
|
|
| Category |
Number |
Percent |
| Sex |
|
|
| Male |
523 |
100 |
| Female |
0 |
0 |
| Age |
|
|
| Under 10 |
2 |
4 |
| 11 to 14 |
36 |
7 |
| 15 to 17 |
375 |
72 |
| 18 to 20 |
105 |
20 |
| Over 20 |
5 |
1 |
| Race |
|
|
| White |
49 |
9 |
| African/American |
118 |
23 |
| Hispanic |
323 |
62 |
| Asian |
23 |
4 |
| Other |
10 |
2 |
| Education |
|
|
| Elementary school |
9 |
2 |
| Middle school |
97 |
19 |
| Some high school |
348 |
67 |
| High school diploma/ |
|
|
| general equivalency |
62 |
12 |
| Some college/ |
|
|
| technical school |
7 |
1 |
| College degree |
0 |
0 |
| Children |
|
|
| Yes |
131 |
25 |
| No |
392 |
75 |
| Gang membership |
|
|
| Yes |
273 |
52 |
| No |
250 |
48 |
| Family upbringing |
|
|
| Both parents |
245 |
47 |
| Single parent |
227 |
43 |
| Other |
51 |
0 |
|
|
|
| Next Page |
|
|
