Despite the growing concern over the severity of the three-strikes law, there are many people who support it. Some of the arguments supporting the law include: Clear Penalties for Crime The criminal justice system should be able to hand out quick and definitive penalties for the crime committed. Due to the mandatory nature of these sentences, the three-strikes law ensures that offenders are punished. Harsh Punishment for Repeat Offenders When the power is left to the judges, it is observed that many times criminals, even the repeat offenders, get away with light sentences. This can be curbed by the mandatory sentences imposed by the three-strikes law, which will ensure that repeat offenders are adequately punished. Removal of Repeat Offenders from Society This is the reason that the legislation was passed in the first place. The primary goal of any criminal justice system is to protect law-abiding citizens. When repeat offenders of serious crimes, like murder and rape, and other dangerous citizens are out on the streets, how is an average person supposed to feel safe? The proponents of this system also feel that there is no chance for repeat offenders to rehabilitate and redeem themselves. They would keep committing crimes which could be dangerous to society. Reduction of Felony Arrest Rates It has been found that the three-strikes law acts as a deterrent of crime and has reduced felony arrest rates by approximately 17 to 20 percent in California.

Punishment May Not Befit the Crime Whether the crime committed by a repeated offender is serious and violent, or minor and nonviolent, the punishment is the same. The law has to differentiate in the punishment it hands out to a dangerous criminal accused of killing five people, and a shoplifter who has picked up $150 worth of videotapes from department stores. The Third Felony May Be Minor It was found that many of the criminals sentenced to life in prison did not commit violent crimes, but minor ones, for their third strike. No civilized society should hand out such harsh sentences to citizens for petty crimes, regardless of past offenses. Some people consider it a violation of the 8th Amendment, which states that 'excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines, imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted'. Moreover, the imposition of maximum sentences because of past crimes can result in 'Double Jeopardy'. This occurs when a person is punished again for crimes for which he has already served time for. Mandatory Sentences Reduces Judges' Discretionary Powers Judges have discretionary powers which allow them to check the character of the criminal, the crime committed, and the circumstances of the crime. With mandatory sentencing laws like the three-strikes law, the powers of the judges are curtailed. This is a direct violation of the separation powers and independence of the judiciary, as outlined by the Constitution of America. The Three-strikes Law is Unnecessary to Reduce Crime Proponents of the law believe that keeping criminals off the streets reduce crime rates. This, however, may not be true. Although proponents of the law stated that crime in California reduced by 40%, it was found that from 1993 to 1999, serious felonies dropped by 41% in New York state, 31% in Washington, D.C., and 33% in Massachusetts without the three-strikes law. Rapid Growth of Prison Population The Corrections Yearbook noted that on August 1, 1994, the California Department of Corrections (CDC) was the most overcrowded prison system in the country. It was operating at 185.8% of its rated capacity. An estimated 25% of the entire prison population in the state are serving sentences under the three-strikes law. This costs the taxpayers and the government a lot of money, with millions being spent to house and pay health care costs of the inmates.