U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFF ICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

BJA NI J OJJDP BJS OVC

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

National Institute of Justice

Jeremy Travis, Director September 1997

continued...

In recent years lawmakers at both the

State and Federal levels have passed legislation increasing penalties for criminal

offenses, particularly violent crimes. These

actions came in response to public concerns about crime and the belief that

many serious offenders are released from

prison too soon. Many such laws have

come under the general label of “three

strikes and you’re out.” The purpose of

these laws is simple: Offenders convicted

repeatedly of serious offenses should be

removed from society for long periods of

time, in many cases for life.

For many years most States have had provisions in their laws that included enhanced sentencing for repeat offenders.1

Yet between 1993 and 1995, 24 States

and the Federal Government enacted new

laws using the “three strikes” moniker,2

with similarly labeled bills introduced in

a number of other States.3

Washington and California were the first

States to implement three-strikes laws.4

As the laws were being debated, the impact they would have on the two States’

criminal justice systems raised concerns.

Critics argued that defendants facing

lengthy mandatory sentences would be

more likely to demand trials, slowing

down the processing of cases and adding

to the problems of court delay and jail

crowding—in effect, creating an unfunded mandate for counties and cities. A

longer term concern was that as more and

more offenders began serving more

lengthy terms of incarceration, prison

overcrowding, already at crisis levels in

many States, would also grow worse.5

This Research in Brief examines the

three-strikes laws in Washington and

California and evaluates their effects to

date; describes the differences among

new three-strikes laws enacted in 24

States; and compares the provisions of

these new laws to each State’s preexisting

provisions on repeat offender sentencing.

Three-strikes models: California

and Washington

Comparison of the laws’ provisions.

The Washington law6

 took effect in December 1993 following a voter initiative

that passed by a three-to-one margin. In

March 1994 the Governor signed the

California law,7

 which voters later ratified

in a State referendum.

Although they were enacted within

months of one another using the same

“three strikes and you’re out” rallying cry

and include many of the same offenses as

“Three Strikes and You’re Out”:

A Review of State Legislation

by John Clark, James Austin, and D. Alan Henry

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: “Three strikes”

laws enacted in Washington and California and their impact, provisions of threestrikes laws newly enacted in 24 States,

and a comparison of the 24 new laws to

preexisting repeat offender sentencing

provisions.

Key issues: Between 1993 and 1995, 24

States and the Federal Government

added three-strikes legislation to already

existing laws that enhanced sentencing

for repeat offenders. The rapid expansion

of such laws reflects the perception that

existing laws were not sufficiently protective of public safety in their application

and/or outcome, that new laws were

needed to address exceptional incidents

that had occurred, or that the intent of

current laws was being frustrated by

other factors.

Key findings: Effects of three-strikes

laws in California and Washington included the following:

• Planners in Washington expected that

between 40 and 75 persons would fall

under three-strikes provisions each year.

However, more than 3 years after the

law took effect, only 85 offenders have

been admitted to the State prison system

under these statutes.

• California’s prison system has admitted

a far larger number of “strikes” offenders

(over 26,000 as of December 1996) than

has any other State’s since April 1994,

although those admissions are fewer

than originally projected.

• The vast majority of California

“strikes” inmates have been sentenced

under the two-strikes provision and for

nonviolent crimes; all but one of the

Washington “strikes” inmates have been

sentenced for crimes against persons.
2

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 1. Comparison of Washington and California Strikes Laws

Type of Offense Washington California

Homicide Murder 1 or 2 Murder

Controlled Substance Homicide

Homicide by Abuse

Manslaughter 1 or 2

Sexual Offenses Rape 1 or 2 Rape

Child Molestation Lewd Act on Child

Incest of Child Continual Sexual Abuse of Child

Sexual Exploitation Penetration by Foreign Object

Sexual Penetration by Force

Sodomy by Force

Oral Copulation by Force

Robbery Robbery 1 or 2 Robbery

Felony Assault Attempt Murder Attempt Murder

Assault 1 or 2 Assault with a Deadly Weapon on

 a Peace Officer

Assault with a Deadly Weapon by

 an Inmate

Assault with Intent to Rape or Rob

Other Crimes Explosion with Threats to Humans Any Felony Resulting in Bodily Harm

Against Persons Extortion Arson Causing Bodily Injury

Kidnaping 1 or 2 Carjacking

Vehicular Assault Exploding Device with Intent to Injure

Exploding Device with Intent to

 Murder

Kidnaping

Mayhem

Property Crimes Arson 1 Arson

Attempt Arson 1 Burglary of Occupied Dwelling

Burglary Grand Theft with Firearm

Drug Offenses Drug Sales to Minors

Weapons Offenses Any Felony with Deadly Weapon Any Felony with Deadly Weapon

Possession of Incendiary Device Any Felony Where Firearm Used

Possession of Prohibited

 Explosive Device

Other Treason

Promoting Prostitution

Leading Organized Crime

strikes (see exhibit 1), the Washington

and California laws differ in three important ways.

First, in Washington all three strikes

must be for felonies specifically listed in

the legislation. Under the California law,

only the first two convictions need to be

from the State’s list of “strikeable” offenses—any subsequent felony can count

as the third strike. Second, the California

law contains a two-strikes feature in

Issues and Findings

continued...

A review of the three-strikes laws

passed in the 24 States shows that:

• States have authorized—or in some

instances, mandated—longer periods

of incarceration for those convicted of

violent crimes.

• What constitutes a strike and under

what conditions varies between States.

There are, however, some constants—

violent felonies such as murder, rape,

and carjacking are typically included as

strikeable offenses.

• There are variations in the number of

strikes needed to be “out.” In 20

States three strikes are required. In one

State a person is sentenced to life without parole for a second strike.

• States differ as to what sanction will

be imposed when sufficient strikes

have accumulated. In 12 States mandatory life sentences with no possibility of

parole are imposed when a person is

out. Parole is possible after a significant

period of incarceration in three other

States once an offender has struck out.

Provisions for enhanced penalties for

repeat offenders existed in 23 of the

24 States before the passage of the latest three-strikes legislation. New laws

added to previously enacted statutes in

various ways:

• Several States supplemented existing

habitual offender laws for any felony

with new laws that focused only on

violent felonies.

• Several States had preexisting habitual offender laws that allowed for,

but did not require, enhanced sentences; the new laws make such sentences mandatory.

Early evidence shows that, with the exception of California, most of the laws

will have minimal impact on those

States’ prison systems because they

were drafted to apply to only the most

violent repeat offenders. Only broadly

defined two-strikes provisions like

California’s have the potential to drastically alter existing sentencing practices.

Target audience: State and local legislators and policymakers, prosecutors,

public defenders, judges, trial court administrators, and researchers.
3

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 2. Reduction in California Prison Population Projections

Fall 1995 Fall 1996

Ending Period Original Projections Revised Projections1 Difference

12/31/95 137,588 135,133 -2,455

06/30/96 146,390 141,017 -5,373

06/30/97 163,695 150,970 -12,725

06/30/98 179,737 159,823 -19,914

06/30/99 196,680 170,344 -26,336

06/30/00 214,963 181,734 -33,229

06/30/01 232,386 193,094 -39,292

 Net Increase 94,798 57,961

1Revisions made after law had been in effect for at least 1 year.

Sources: California Department of Corrections, Fall 1996; Population Projections, 1996–2001.

which a person convicted of any felony

who has one prior conviction for a

strikeable offense is to be sentenced to

twice the term he or she would otherwise receive. There is no second-strike

provision in the Washington law.

Third, the sanctions for a third strike

differ. The Washington statute requires a life term in prison without the

possibility of parole for a person convicted for the third time of any of the

“most serious offenses” listed in the

law. In California a “third striker” has

at least the possibility of eventually

being released, albeit after serving a

minimum imprisonment of 25 years.8

Impact on local courts and jails.

When the three-strikes laws were initially implemented in Washington and

California, some analysts projected

that the law enacted in California

would have a much greater impact on

the local criminal justice system than

the law passed in Washington because

it had a much broader scope.9

 They

predicted that California courts would

become overwhelmed as defendants

facing enhanced penalties would demand jury trials. The added time to

process cases through trials and the

reluctance to release pending trial defendants who were facing long prison

terms would cause jail populations to

explode as the number of admissions

and length of jail stays grew.10

Early evidence from California indicated that these predictions were proving correct. A review of 12,600 twoand three-strikes cases from Los Angeles, for example, showed that twostrikes cases remained pending in

court 16 percent longer and threestrikes cases 41 percent longer than

nonstrike cases. In addition, strikes

cases were three times more likely to

go to trial than nonstrike felonies and

four times more likely to go to trial

than the same types of cases before the

law took effect. This led to a 25-percent

increase in jury trials as well as an

11-percent rise in the proportion of the

jail population held in pretrial status,

from 59 percent before the law was enacted to 70 percent.11 Furthermore, a

survey of sheriff’s departments throughout the State showed that the pretrial detainee population had grown statewide,

going from 51 percent of the average

daily population before three strikes to

61 percent by January 1, 1995.12

However, more recent data show that

at least some counties in the State are

learning to absorb the increases

brought about by the law. A survey of

eight counties with populations of

more than 1 million identified several

counties that have successfully disposed of two- and three-strikes cases

early in the process.13 Under the Delay

Reduction Program—a new pilot

project in one of Los Angeles County’s

Superior Court districts implemented

as a result of the added burdens the

three-strikes law imposed on the

court—the pending caseload of criminal

cases has been reduced dramatically.14

In addition, the most recent data from

the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department

suggest that the pace of strikes cases

coming into that system may be slowing. The number of two-strikes cases

filed by the Los Angeles district attorney

declined by 15 percent between the second quarter of 1995 and the second

quarter of 1996. Likewise, there was a

28-percent decline between the two periods in the number of three-strikes

cases filed. The department reports that

it is too early to say whether these findings suggest a trend or whether there is

another possible cause.15

Impact on State prison systems.

The impact of these laws on State corrections has not been as severe as projected in either Washington or

California. Planners in Washington

had expected that between 40 and 75

persons would fall under three-strikes

provisions each year. Even this low

projection has not been met. Since December 1993 when the law took effect,

only 85 offenders—as compared with

the 120–225 that had been projected—have been admitted to the

Washington State prison system under

its three-strikes law.16

A similar overestimate has been made

of the California law’s impact on its

prison system. As of December 31,

1996, a total of 26,074 offenders have

been admitted to the California Department of Corrections (CDC) for either a two- or three-strikes sentence.
4

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 3. Number of Two- and Three-Strikes Cases Admitted to CDC by Month

Date Two Strikes Three Strikes Total

1994

April 32 - 32

May 124 1 125

June 220 - 220

July 329 5 334

August 428 12 440

September 489 21 510

October 579 36 615

November 638 24 662

December 644 53 697

1995

January 668 43 711

February 705 61 766

March 970 89 1,059

April 869 94 963

May 940 98 1,038

June 905 106 1,011

July 763 73 836

August 934 117 1,051

September 872 99 971

October 790 101 891

November 825 118 943

December 783 109 892

1996

January 832 123 955

February 797 140 937

March 845 122 967

April 851 110 961

May 938 146 1,084

June 741 117 858

July 812 133 945

August 918 145 1,063

September 774 132 906

October 841 131 972

November 684 101 785

December 727 147 874

TOTAL 23,267 2,807 26,074

Source: California Department of Corrections

Of this number, nearly 90 percent

were sentenced under the two-strikes

provision.17 Although the sheer number of cases affected by the law is significantly higher than for any other

State, the numbers are not as great as

originally projected. Consequently,

CDC recently lowered its 5-year projection by nearly 40,000 inmates (see

exhibit 2), principally because there

have not been as many two-strikes admissions as expected and because

judges have modified their sentencing

practices for the two-strikes cases. CDC

had estimated that judges would choose

longer sentences within the ranges provided by the law. More directly, CDC

had expected 42 percent of the twostrikers to be sentenced at the “low”

range of sentences but has found that

approximately 60 percent are being

sentenced at this range. They have resulted in shorter-than-expected sentence lengths or shorter stays in prison.

Exhibit 3 shows the number of CDC

admissions for two- and three-strikes

cases by month; exhibit 4 portrays

these data in graph form. As expected,

there was a dramatic increase in the

first 12 months, but the number of admissions has unexpectedly leveled off

and even declined slightly.

Finally, there is tremendous variation

in the application of the law by county.

Exhibit 5 shows the differential use of

the law in five major counties. San

Francisco and Alameda counties have

rarely applied the law; San Diego and

Sacramento, which have comparable

populations and crime rates, have

been far more active in using the law.

Los Angeles County is the most frequent user of the law—11,656 offenders have been sent to prison, nearly

half of all the State’s cases.

One recent development that might

further reduce these revised projections

0

200

400

600

800

1000

2 Strikes 3 Strikes

1994 1995 1996

MONTH/YEAR

FREQUENCY

Exhibit 4. Number of Two- and Three-Strikes Cases Admitted to CDC by

Month, April 1994–December 1996
5

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 6. Comparison of Washington State and California Prison Admissions

as of March 1, 1996

Washington California

3 Strikes 2 Strikes 3 Strikes

N%N % N %

Total Intake 53 100.0 15,230 91.2 1,477 8.8

Sex

Male 52 98.1 14,456 94.9 1,455 98.5

Female 1 1.9 774 5.1 22 1.5

Age

Under 20 0 0.0 1,111 7.3 105 7.1

20–29 10 18.9 7,118 46.7 636 43.1

30–39 21 39.6 5,197 34.1 521 35.3

40–49 20 37.7 1,540 10.1 170 11.5

50+ 2 3.8 264 1.7 45 3.0

Race/Ethnicity

Black 21 39.6 5,657 37.1 649 43.9

Hispanic 1 1.9 4,981 32.7 400 27.1

White 30 56.6 4,043 26.5 373 25.3

Other 1 1.9 549 3.6 55 3.7

Current Offense*

Person 52 98.1 2,198 14.5 367 25.5

Property 1 1.9 6,251 41.1 558 38.8

Drugs 0 0.0 4,802 31.6 312 22.0

Other 0 0.0 1,943 12.8 198 13.8

Sentence Length

Life 53 100.0 27 0.2 8 0.5

Other than Life 0 0.0 15,203 99.8 1,469 99.5

Average Sentence N/A 4.9 Years 37.4 Years

* Due to missing data on current offense for California cases, the number of two- and

three-strikes inmates do not total to 15,230 and 1,477, respectively.

Source: California Department of Corrections and Washington Department of Corrections.

Exhibit 5. Comparison of Selected Counties on Use of Two and Three Strikes

2 Strikes 3 Strikes

Resident Violent Crime1 Property Crime2 Prison Prison

County Population N Rate3 N Rate3 Admission Admission

San Diego 2,627,659 13,463 874 71,764 5,287 2,613 324

Alameda 2,170,116 9,809 1,138 35,118 6,192 290 36

Los Angeles 9,146,057 90,817 1,682 257,602 5,367 10,495 1,161

San Francisco 1,642,731 13,365 1,088 56,767 5,609 284 19

Sacramento 1,433,067 4,850 806 34,635 6,233 1,057 183

Statewide Totals 31,211,000 336,381 1,078 1,678,884 5,379 23,889 2,900

Sources: U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports: Crime in the United States, 1993; California

Department of Corrections, 1997.

1 Violent crimes are offenses of murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

2 Property crimes are offenses of burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Data are not included for arson.

3 Rate = incidents per 100,000 population.

is a California Supreme Court ruling

that allows judicial discretion in applying the law.18 This ruling may well

further limit the use of the law and

could create a major logjam of appeals

for the nearly 26,000 inmates sentenced under the law who may be eligible for resentencing.

Profile of inmates sentenced under

strikes laws. In contrasting the attributes of inmates sentenced under the

strikes laws in the two States (see exhibit

6), it is noteworthy that a majority of

California inmates have been sentenced

for nonviolent crimes, while all but one

of the Washington inmates have been

sentenced for crimes against persons.

The Washington inmates are also older,

probably reflective of the State’s narrower “strike zone.”

Exhibit 7 presents a more detailed

analysis by sentence length of the offenses for which California inmates

have been convicted.19 Excluding violent crimes, the typical sentence for a

two-strikes property or drug offense

ranges from 3 to 5 years. The sentence

length increases dramatically for a

third strike with ranges from 26 to 44

years. The majority of drug offenses

are either simple possession or possession with intent to sell.

Relative to classification data, the majority of two-strikers are either minimum- or low medium-custody inmates

with little history of prior institutional

problems (see exhibit 8). The same basic trend exists for three-strikers, although a greater proportion are

classified in the higher custody levels,
6

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 7. California Sentence by Offense by Two- and Three-Strikes Laws as of March 1, 1996

2 Strikes 3 Strikes

Number % Sentence Number % Sentence

Offense of Offenses in Years of Offenses in Years

Murder 1st 6 0.0 77.0 1 0.0 85.0

Murder 2nd 22 0.2 26.0 4 0.3 39.3

Manslaughter 22 0.2 15.0 3 0.2 43.0

Robbery 929 6.1 10.0 180 12.5 44.8

Assault 988 6.5 6.9 127 8.8 44.3

Rape 18 0.1 37.2 7 0.5 93.1

Other Sex Crime 188 1.2 12.1 37 2.6 67.1

Kidnaping 15 0.1 20.7 8 0.6 42.5

Burglary 2,147 14.1 5.4 269 18.7 33.6

Grand Theft 419 2.8 3.2 19 1.3 26.0

Petty Theft with Prior 1,928 12.7 3.3 131 9.1 28.0

Receive Stolen Property 658 4.3 3.7 63 4.4 26.9

Auto Theft 721 4.7 3.7 50 3.5 36.1

Forgery/Fraud 241 15.9 3.6 16 1.1 27.5

Other Property Crime 137 0.9 3.4 10 0.7 27.8

Drug Possession 3,064 20.2 3.1 172 11.9 27.2

Drug Possession for Sale 843 5.5 4.9 55 3.8 29.3

Drug Sale/Manufacture 724 4.8 6.1 61 4.2 29.5

Other Drug Offense 171 1.1 5.9 29 2.0 30.9

Weapons Possession 1,162 7.6 4.2 140 9.2 43.7

Other Offense 781 5.1 4.6 58 4.0 41.3

Source: California Department of Corrections Data Tape—Classification File.

largely due to their lengthy prison

terms. The sentence length is a major

determinant of an inmate’s custody

level within CDC. A special task force

has been created by CDC to determine

whether the CDC classification system

should be adjusted to ensure that twostrikers and three-strikers are not being overclassified.

Three-strikes variations in

other States

The strikes laws in California and

Washington demonstrate that although

statutes may share the same title,

“three strikes and you’re out” can have

dramatically different meanings across

States. A review of the provisions of the

24 States that have enacted this type of

legislation, summarized in exhibit 9, reveals differences in:

Exhibit 8. Classification Attributes of California’s Prisoners Sentenced Under

Two- and Three-Strikes Laws as of March 1, 1996

Classification Attributes Two Strikers Three Strikers

(N=15,230) (N=1,477)

Custody Level

Minimum (I) 26.7% 16.5%

Low Medium (II) 26.7% 17.1%

High Medium (III) 27.6% 24.2%

Maximum (IV) 11.3% 34.7%

Unclassified 7.7% 7.4%

No Prior Military Service 97.8% 96.6%

No High School Degree 83.7% 82.1%

Not Married 82.8% 77.9%

No Prior Walkaways 95.1% 90.1%

No Prior Assaults on Inmates 98.3% 95.6%

No Prior Assaults on Staff 99.2% 97.1%

No Prior Escapes 99.3% 98.8%

No Prior Disciplinaries 94.8% 87.0%

No Current Disciplinaries 45.0% 52.2%

Satisfactory Work/Program 39.0% 51.3%

Source: California Department of Corrections Data Tape—Classification File.
7

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 9. Variations in State Strikes Laws

Strikes Needed

State Strike Zone Defined To Be “Out” Meaning of “Out”

Arkansas Murder, kidnaping, robbery Two Not less than 40 years in prison;

rape, terrorist act no parole

First-degree battery; Three Range of no parole sentences,

firing gun from vehicle; depending on the offense

use of prohibited weapon;

conspiracy to commit murder,

kidnaping, robbery, rape,

first-degree battery, or

first-degree sexual abuse

California Any felony if one prior Two Mandatory sentence of twice the

felony conviction from term for the offense involved

list of strikeable

offenses (see exhibit 1)

Any felony if two prior Three Mandatory indeterminate life

felony convictions from sentence, with no parole

list of strikeable offenses eligibility for 25 years

Colorado Any Class 1 or 2 felony Three Mandatory life in prison with

or any Class 3 felony that no parole eligibility for 40

is violent years

Connecticut Murder, attempt murder, Two Up to 40 years in prison

assault with intent to kill,

manslaughter, arson, Three Up to life in prison

kidnaping, aggravated

sexual assault, robbery,

first-degree assault

Florida Any forcible felony, Three Life if third strike involves

aggravated stalking, aggravated first-degree felony, 30–40 years

child abuse, lewd or indecent if second-degree felony, 10–15

conduct, escape years if third-degree felony

Georgia Murder, armed robbery, Two Mandatory life without parole

kidnaping, rape, aggravated

child molestation, aggravated

sodomy, aggravated sexual

battery

Any felony Four Mandatory maximum sentence for

the charge

Indiana Murder, rape, sexual battery Three Mandatory life without possibility

with weapon, child molestation, of parole

arson, robbery, burglary with

weapon or resulting in serious

injury, drug dealing

Kansas Any felony against a person Two Court may double term specified

in sentencing guidelines

Any felony against a person Three Court may triple term specified

in sentencing guidelines

Louisiana Murder, attempt murder, Three Mandatory life in prison with no

manslaughter, rape, armed parole eligibility

robbery, kidnaping, any drug

offense punishable by more

than 5 years, any felony

punishable by more than 12

years

• How a “strike zone” is defined.

• How many strikes are required to be

“out.”

• What it means to be “out.”

Strike zone defined. The strike

zone—what constitutes a strike and

under what conditions—varies from

State to State. There are some constants—violent felonies such as murder, rape, robbery, arson, aggravated

assault, and carjacking are typically

included as strike offenses in such legislation. But States have included

other charges, such as the following:

• In Indiana—the sale of drugs.

• In Louisiana—any drug offense punishable by imprisonment for more than

5 years.

• In California—the sale of drugs to

minors.

• In Florida—escape.

• In Washington—treason.

• In South Carolina—embezzlement

and bribery.

Two States define strikeable offenses

based on the prior charge and the sentence imposed. Maryland and Tennessee both require that a sentence of

incarceration must have been imposed

in order for listed offenses to qualify

as strikes.

Some States have established different

levels of strikeable offenses. For example, in Georgia, a second conviction

for a defined violent felony mandates a

sentence of life without parole, while a

fourth felony conviction of any kind requires that the maximum sentence allowable for the charge be imposed.

How many strikes are required to

be “out.” There are also variations in

the number of strikes needed to be

Continued on next page
8

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Louisiana Any four felony convictions Four Mandatory life in prison with no

(continued) if at least one was on the parole eligibility

above list

Maryland Murder; rape; robbery; first- Four, with Mandatory life in prison with no

or second-degree sexual separate prison parole eligibility

offense; arson; burglary; terms served

kidnaping; carjacking; for first three

manslaughter; use of firearm strikes

in felony; assault with intent

to murder, rape, rob, or

commit sexual offense

Montana Deliberate homicide, Two Mandatory life in prison with no

aggravated kidnaping, sexual parole eligibility

intercourse without consent,

ritual abuse of a minor

Mitigated deliberate homicide, Three Mandatory life in prison with no

aggravated assault, kidnaping, parole eligibility

robbery

Nevada Murder, robbery, kidnaping, Three Court has option to sentence

battery, abuse of child, offender to one of the following:

arson, home invasion life without parole; life with

parole possible after 10 years, or

25 years with parole possible

after 10 years

New Jersey Murder, robbery, carjacking Three Mandatory life in prison with no

parole eligibility

New Mexico Murder, shooting at or from Three Mandatory life in prison with

vehicle and causing harm, parole eligibility after 30 years

kidnaping, criminal sexual

penetration, armed robbery

resulting in harm

North Carolina 47 violent felonies; separate Three Mandatory life in prison with no

indictment is required with parole eligibility

finding that offender is

“violent habitual offender”

North Dakota Any Class A, B, or C felony Two If second strike is for Class A

felony, court may impose

extended sentence of up to life;

if Class B felony, up to 20 years;

if Class C felony, up to 10 years

Pennsylvania Murder, voluntary Two Enhanced sentence of up to 10

manslaughter, rape, years

involuntary deviate sexual

intercourse, arson, kidnaping,

robbery, aggravated assault

Same offenses Three Enhanced sentence of up to 25

years

South Carolina Murder, voluntary Two Mandatory life in prison with no

manslaughter, homicide by parole eligibility

child abuse, rape, kidnaping,

armed robbery, drug

trafficking, embezzlement,

bribery, certain accessory

and attempt offenses

“out.” In South Carolina, a person convicted a second time for any of a list of

“most serious offenses” is sentenced to

life without parole. There is no third

strike.

Three strikes are required to be “out”

in 20 States, but seven of them—Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Kansas,

Montana, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee—also have enhanced sentences for

two strikes, depending on the offense.

What it means to be “out.” Finally,

States differ as to what sanction will be

imposed when sufficient strikes have

accumulated. Mandatory life sentences

with no possibility of parole are imposed when a person is out in Georgia,

Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, New Jersey, North Carolina,

South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,

Washington, and Wisconsin.20

In three States, parole is possible after

an offender is “out,” but only after a significant period of incarceration. In New

Mexico, such offenders are eligible for

parole after serving 30 years, while

those in Colorado must serve 40 years

before parole can be considered. In

California, a minimum of 25 years must

be served before parole eligibility.

Most three-strikes laws involve mandatory minimum sentences. Four States—

Connecticut, Kansas, Arkansas, and

Nevada—have recently enacted laws

enhancing the possible penalties for

multiple convictions for specified serious felonies but leave the actual sentence to the discretion of the court.

• In Connecticut, judges can sentence

an offender to 40 years in prison for a

second conviction for specified serious

felonies and to life in prison for a third

such conviction.

Continued from page 7

Continued on next page

Strikes Needed

State Strike Zone Defined To Be “Out” Meaning of “Out”
9

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Tennessee Murder, especially aggravated Two, if prison Mandatory life in prison with no

kidnaping, especially term served for parole eligibility

aggravated robbery, aggravated first strike

rape, rape of a child,

aggravated arson

Same as above, plus rape, Three, if Mandatory life in prison with no

aggravated sexual battery, separate prison parole eligibility

aggravated robbery, terms served for

especially aggravated first two strikes

burglary, especially

aggravated child abuse,

aggravated sexual

exploitation of child

Utah Any first- or second-degree Three Court may sentence from 5 years

felony up to life

Vermont Murder, manslaughter, arson Three Court may sentence up to life in

causing death, assault and prison

robbery with weapon or

causing bodily injury,

aggravated assault, kidnaping,

maiming, aggravated sexual

assault, aggravated domestic

assault, lewd conduct with child

Virginia Murder, kidnaping, robbery, Three Mandatory life in prison with no

carjacking, sexual assault, parole eligibility

conspiracy to commit any

of above

Washington Charges listed in exhibit 1 Three Mandatory life in prison with no

parole eligibility

Wisconsin Murder, manslaughter, Three Mandatory life in prison with no

vehicular homicide, aggravated parole eligibility

battery, abuse of child,

robbery, sexual assault,

taking hostages, kidnaping,

arson, burglary

• In Kansas, the legislature enacted

sentencing guidelines that provide

judges with a sentencing range based

on the offense and the offender’s prior

record. A recent amendment allows

judges to double guideline sentences

for offenders convicted of certain

listed violent felonies for the second

time and to triple them for those convicted a third time.

• In Arkansas, a judge may choose either a mandatory sentence short of life

imprisonment or a life sentence for a

second or third strikeable offense.

• Similar provisions exist in the Nevada

law, which give the judge the option on a

third-strike conviction of imposing a life

sentence without parole, a life sentence

with parole possible after 10 years, or a

25-year sentence with parole possible

after 10 years.

Five States—Florida, North Dakota,

Pennsylvania, Utah, and Vermont—

provide sentence ranges up to life,

depending on the State, when certain

violent offenses are committed by

repeat offenders.

Comparing preexisting provisions.

To accurately describe the impact of

three-strikes laws on a State’s justice

and corrections systems, one must first

consider how each State was equipped

to respond to repeat violent offenders

prior to enactment of a three-strikes

law. Did the new legislation successfully close a loophole in the State’s

criminal sanctioning authority as

hoped, or was the new law in effect

targeting a population already covered

by existing laws?

To determine the extent to which the

new three-strikes laws differ from preexisting sentencing provisions, officials in each of the 24 three-strikes

States were contacted and asked to

provide copies of the new three-strikes

legislation along with any preexisting

habitual or repeat offender statutes.

These statutes, summarized in exhibit

10, show that there were provisions for

enhanced penalties for repeat offenders in all but 1 (Kansas) of the 24

States before the passage of the latest

three-strikes legislation. In Louisiana,

Maryland, South Carolina, and Tennessee, the mandatory penalty for a repeat violent offender—life in prison

without the possibility of parole—

already existed and remained unchanged, but the definition of such an

offender was expanded under the new

legislation.

• Preexisting law in Louisiana mandated life in prison without parole for a

third conviction for certain violent and

drug felonies. It also required life imprisonment with no parole for any

fourth or subsequent felony conviction

if at least two of the felonies were

among the listed violent or drug offenses. The three-strikes provisions

were not changed, but the four-strikes

provisions now require a sentence of

Continued from page 8

Strikes Needed

State Strike Zone Defined To Be “Out” Meaning of “Out”
10

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Exhibit 10. Comparison of New Strikes Laws With Preexisting Sentencing

Provisions

Features of New Year Features of Preexisting

State Strikes Legislation Implemented Sentencing Laws

Arkansas Range of no parole sentences 1995 Extended prison terms for repeat

starting at 40 years for second offenders, broken down by

conviction for specified violent seriousness of new conviction

felonies; no parole sentences for and number of prior convictions

third conviction for other specified

felonies

California Mandatory doubling of sentence for 1994 Life with no parole eligibility before

any felony if one prior serious or 20 years for third violent felony

violent felony conviction; mandatory conviction where separate prison

life for any third felony if two terms were served for the first

prior serious or violent felony two convictions; life without parole

convictions for fourth violent felony conviction

Colorado Mandatory life in prison with no 1994 Mandatory tripling of presumptive

parole eligibility for 40 years for sentence for third conviction

third conviction for Class 1 or 2 for any Class 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5

felony or Class 3 felony that is violent felony within 10-year period

violent

Connecticut Up to life in prison for third 1994 On second violent felony conviction

conviction for many violent offenses in which period of imprisonment

was served for the first, court

could sentence as Class A felony

Florida Added new category of “violent 1995 Categories of habitual felony

career criminal” to existing offender and habitual violent

habitual offender statute; offender; range of enhanced

for third conviction for specified sentences

violent offense, life if firstdegree felony, 30–40 years if

second-degree felony, 10–15

years if third-degree felony

Georgia Mandatory life without parole 1995 On fourth felony conviction offender

for second specified violent must serve maximum time imposed

felony conviction and not be eligible for parole until

maximum sentence served

Indiana Mandatory life without parole 1994 Habitual offender law requiring

for third specified violent enhanced sentencing on third

felony conviction felony conviction

Kansas Allows court to double sentencing 1994 No provisions for enhancing

guidelines for second and third sentences on guidelines for

convictions for many “person repeat offenders

felonies”

Louisiana Mandatory life without parole for 1994 Same law, except that for fourth

third specified felony conviction felony conviction, at least two

or for fourth felony conviction, of the convictions must have

including at least one conviction been among listed violent or

for specified felonies drug offenses

Maryland Life without parole for fourth 1994 Same law, except that carjacking

violent felony conviction for and armed carjacking were not on

which separate prison terms the list of offenses receiving

were served for the first three this sentence

Montana Mandatory life without parole 1995 Persistent offender statute

for second conviction for certain allowing extended sentence of

offenses and third conviction 5–100 years, to be served

for other offenses consecutively with any other

sentence, for person convicted

of any felony with one or more

prior felony convictions within

previous 5 years

life without parole if any of the four

felonies are on the list of violent or

drug felonies.

• Maryland added carjacking and

armed carjacking to a preexisting law

that mandates a term of life in prison

without parole on the fourth conviction

for a listed crime of violence, if separate prison terms have been served for

the first three such convictions.

• South Carolina, which since 1976

had a law mandating life imprisonment

without parole on the third conviction

for a violent felony, reduced the number of such convictions needed to two.

• Tennessee likewise had a preexisting three-strikes law with a penalty of

life imprisonment without parole.

Amendments to this law—enacted in

1994 and 1995—expanded the number of charges that qualify for a threestrikes sentence and added a new

two-strikes category for the most serious violent offenses.

Two States—North Dakota and Vermont—expanded the definition of a

repeat offender:

• Under preexisting law, an offender

in North Dakota would receive an enhanced sentence on the second conviction for Class A or B offenses. The

new law expands the preexisting statute to include Class C offenses.

• In Vermont, which had allowed sentencing of up to life in prison for an offender convicted of any felony for the

fourth time, a new law allows for a life

sentence on the third conviction for a

listed violent offense while retaining

the fourth conviction provision.

• In Virginia the definition of a repeat

violent offender remained essentially

the same (third conviction for a violent

offense), but the punishment was enhanced. The State moved from providing Continued on next page
11

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Nevada Range of options for enhancing 1995 Same options, but on conviction

sentence on third conviction for violent felony if three

for violent felony prior felony convictions of

any kind

New Jersey Mandatory life without parole for 1995 Rarely invoked “persistent offender”

third conviction for certain violent provision allowing sentence of one

felonies degree higher than the conviction

offense on third felony conviction

for first-, second-, or third-degree

felony

New Mexico Mandatory life with parole 1994 Mandatory increased sentence of

eligibility after 30 years for 1 year on second felony conviction,

third violent felony conviction 4 years on third, and 8 years on

fourth or more

North Carolina Mandatory life without parole for 1994 Habitual criminal statute mandating

third conviction for violent offense an additional consecutive term of

25 years on third conviction for any

felony, with the court specifying

minimum number of years to be

served before parole eligibility

North Dakota Enhanced sentences for second 1995 Enhanced sentences for second

conviction for Class A, B, or C conviction for only Class A or B

felony felony

Pennsylvania Mandatory minimum enhanced 1995 Mandatory minimum enhanced

sentence of 10 years for second sentence of 5 years for second

conviction for crime of violence or subsequent conviction for

and 25 years for third such certain specified crimes of

conviction violence

South Carolina Mandatory life without parole for 1995 Mandatory life without parole

second conviction for specified for third conviction for same

felonies specified felonies

Tennessee Mandatory life without parole for 1995 Mandatory life without parole

second conviction for designated for third violent felony conviction

violent felonies; same for third

conviction for other violent felonies

Utah Second- and third-degree felony 1995 Second- and third-degree felonies

offenders sentenced as first-degree receive enhanced sentence of 5 years

felons, and first-degree felons not to life if offender has two prior

eligible for probation, if they have convictions at least as severe as

two prior convictions for any second-degree felonies

felonies and a present conviction

for a violent felony

Vermont Up to life with no suspended 1995 Up to life for fourth felony

sentence or no probation eligibility conviction

and no early release for third

conviction for crime of violence;

up to life for fourth felony

conviction of any kind

Virginia Mandatory life without parole on 1994 No parole eligibility if convicted

third conviction for specified of three separate violent felonies

violent felonies or drug distribution

charges

Washington Mandatory life without parole on 1993 Number of prior convictions

third conviction for specified factored into offender score on

violent felonies State’s sentencing guidelines

Wisconsin Mandatory life without parole on 1994 For repeat felony offenders, up to 10

third conviction for specified years can be added to sentences of

serious offenses 10 years or more; 6 years can be

added to sentences of 1–10 years

Features of New Year Features of Preexisting

State Strikes Legislation Implemented Sentencing Laws

no parole eligibility, no matter the sentence, for those convicted of three

separate violent felonies to mandating

life sentences with no parole eligibility

for this group.

Several States supplemented existing

habitual offender laws for any felony

with new laws that focused only on

violent felonies.

• Preexisting Colorado law required a

tripling of the presumptive sentence

for persons convicted of any Class 1,

2, 3, 4, or 5 violent felony three times

within a 10-year period. The new

three-strikes law, which mandates a

life sentence with no parole eligibility

for 40 years for a third violent offense

conviction, does not contain the 10-

year time period of the preexisting law.

• New Mexico took a similar path,

adding life imprisonment with parole

eligibility after 30 years for a third violent felony conviction to a preexisting

provision calling for a mandatory

added term of imprisonment of 1 year

on a second felony conviction, 4 years

on a third conviction, and 8 years on a

fourth or subsequent conviction.

• A new law in Indiana mandating life

in prison without parole on a third

conviction for certain violent offenses

supplements a preexisting law that requires an enhanced sentence on a

third conviction for any felony.

• Under preexisting law in Georgia, offenders convicted of any felony for a

fourth time must serve the maximum

sentence imposed before parole eligibility. A new provision was added to

this statute mandating life in prison

without parole on the second conviction for a specified violent felony.

• An habitual criminal law in North

Carolina required an additional consecutive sentence of 25 years on the

Continued from page 10
12

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

third conviction for any felony. Provisions mandating life without parole on

the third conviction for violent felonies

have been added to the preexisting law.

In some States, the changes involved

both expanding the definitions of repeat violent offenders and enhancing

the sentences.

• The habitual offender statute that

was in effect in California prior to the

enactment of the three-strikes law

mandated a sentence of life imprisonment with first parole eligibility after

20 years for persons who were convicted for a third time of a listed violent offense and who had served

separate prison terms for the first two

convictions. It also provided that on

the fourth conviction for such a felony

in which three separate prison terms

had been served, the offender was to

be sentenced to life without parole.

The new law does not require any

prison time to have been served for a

listed felony to count as a first or second strike nor that the third strike be a

violent felony. It does, however, require a minimum of 25 years to be

served for the third strike and contains

enhanced penalties for a second strike.

• Preexisting Pennsylvania law mandated an extended prison term of 5

years for the second or subsequent

conviction for certain specified crimes

of violence. The new law expands the

list of violent offenses and amends the

extended mandatory minimum prison

term from 5 to 10 years for a second

conviction and to 25 years for a third

such conviction.

• Before enactment of the three-strikes

law in Washington, which requires life

without parole on a third conviction for

specified violent offenses, sentences

for offenders were calculated using the

State’s sentencing guidelines.

Other States had preexisting habitual

offender laws that allowed for enhanced sentences, but such sentences were not mandatory.

• Preexisting Florida law allowed the

court to sentence habitual violent

felony offenders to extended prison

terms, including up to life in certain

instances. The recent law creates a

new category of “violent career criminal” and establishes mandatory sentences ranging from 10 to 15 years for

a third-degree felony, 30 to 40 years

for a second-degree felony, and life imprisonment for a first-degree felony.

• Until New Jersey enacted a law in

1995 mandating life in prison without

parole for a third conviction for certain violent offenses, it was left to the

discretion of the sentencing judge to

determine if the third conviction for a

first-, second-, or third-degree felony

warranted an extended term of imprisonment.

• A Wisconsin law that allowed the

court to extend sentences by up to 10

years for repeat offenders in certain

cases was supplemented in 1994 with

a three-strikes law requiring a term of

life imprisonment without parole on

the third conviction for listed felony

offenses.

• A similar preexisting statute in

Montana provided the court with a sentencing range of 5 to 100 years as an

extended term to be served consecutively with the original sentence for

those convicted of a felony twice within

5 years. The new law requires a sentence of life without parole for those

convicted of certain violent offenses for

the second time and of other violent offenses for the third time.

Since many of the new strikes laws

target offenders who would have already received lengthy prison terms

under preexisting repeat offender statutes, it is not likely that these laws will

have a significant impact on the

courts, jails, or prison systems in those

States. However, even though the actual number of cases in the 24 States

is expected to be small, it is too early

to determine the impact more specifically because the laws have not been

in place long and serious cases, as described in these strike statutes, by

their nature take longer to reach disposition.

Conclusion

“Three strikes and you’re out” as a typology for criminal justice sanctioning

is not easily defined. No common definitions exist for the terms “three,”

“strike,” or “out” across the States.

However, certain factors are associated with all of the three-strikes laws

passed in the 24 States. The first is the

authorization—or in some instances,

mandate—for longer periods of incarceration for those convicted of violent

crimes.

Other similarities include the following:

• All but 1 (Kansas) of the 24 States

had preexisting laws that targeted repeat violent offenders; the breadth of

those preexisting statutes will, to a

large extent, determine the impact of

the new laws in each State.

• All of the statutes either increase the

period of incarceration for violent

crime, expand the number of crimes

that are included in the violent crime

category, or both. In some instances

laws simply changed the period of incarceration for a particular crime from

a range to a mandated fixed number of

years.

• In the majority of States, the new legislation has reduced judicial discretion
13

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

the budget ramifications of any

changes that have taken place. The

following questions need to be addressed to learn more about this sentencing reform effort and its impact:

• Is there a measurable effect on crime

in States where such laws were passed?

• If yes, does this effect differ from

what is occurring in States that have

not adopted such laws?

• In States that are considering threestrikes legislation but have not yet enacted it, what are likely to be the

features of such laws?

•What factors differentiate States that

have not adopted three-strikes legislation from those that have?

• To what extent are the laws modified

over time by practice or new legislation to moderate their use?

• To what extent are there variations in

the application of the laws, both across

and within courts and counties?

• To what extent does different application of the law to inmates with similar offenses and prior records affect

their behavior within the prison and

jail systems?

• What features of two- and threestrikes laws are associated with compliance (or lack of compliance) with

the laws’ provisions by prosecutors

and judges?

• What impact have these sentencing

reforms had on public perceptions of

the criminal justice system and its

ability to incapacitate dangerous offenders?

• Based on the early experiences of

California and Washington State, what

lessons can be learned about projecting the impact of sentencing reforms

on the courts, corrections, and crime?

Notes

1. Bureau of Justice Assistance, National Assessment of Structured Sentencing, U.S. Department of Justice,

February 1996.

2. Donna Lyons, “Three Strikes” Legislation Update, National Conference of

State Legislatures, December 1995.

3. Michael G. Turner et al., “ ‘Three

Strikes and You’re Out’ Legislation: A

National Assessment,” Federal Probation, Vol. 59, No. 8, September 1995.

4. Several States have had such legislation on the books for many years. For

example, South Dakota has had threestrikes-type legislation since 1877.

5. James Austin, “ ‘Three Strikes and

You’re Out’: The Likely Consequences

on the Courts, Prisons, and Crime in

California and Washington State,” St.

Louis University Public Law Review,

Vol. 14, No. 1, 1994.

6. Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9.94A.030

(West 1994).

7. Cal. Penal Code § 667 (Deering

1994).

8. The Washington law does contain a

provision retaining the Governor’s

at the sentencing phase of the criminal

justice process. This appears to continue the recent trend of legislatively

imposed limitations on judges’ decisions, as evidenced by the expansion

of mandatory minimum sentence legislation and sentencing guidelines.

The rapid expansion of three-strikes

laws, regardless of how they are defined, reflects the perceptions that

existing laws did not adequately protect public safety in their application

and/or outcome, that exceptional incidents had occurred that the new laws

would address, or that the intent of

current laws was being frustrated by

other factors such as prison crowding.

Whether the perceptions were accurate and what the impact will be of the

new laws are questions that cannot yet

be answered.

Early evidence suggests that most of

the laws will have minimal impact on

their respective State prison systems.

States have drafted these laws so they

would be applied to only the most violent repeat offenders. In most States

these offenders were already receiving

lengthy prison terms under existing

statutes. Only broadly defined twostrikes provisions such as California’s

have the potential to radically alter existing sentencing practices; even in

that State, indications are that judicial

interpretations of the law—recently

supported by a State Supreme Court

decision—as well as prosecutorial discretion in how the law is applied may

blunt the anticipated increases.

Followup research will continue to

track in detail the impact of threestrikes laws on each stage of the criminal justice process (including bail

setting, detention, time to trial, type of

trial, plea negotiations, and jail and

prison population levels), as well as

John Clark is a Senior Associate at

the Pretrial Services Resource Center. James Austin, Ph.D., is Executive Vice President of the National

Council on Crime and Delinquency.

D. Alan Henry is Executive Director of the Pretrial Services Resource Center. The project was

supported by contract 95–IJ–CX–

0026 awarded to the National

Council on Crime and Delinquency

by the National Institute of Justice.
14

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

authority to grant a pardon or clemency, but it also recommends that no

person sentenced under this law to life

in prison without parole be granted

clemency until the offender has

reached 60 years of age and is judged

to be no longer a threat to society.

9. Austin, 1994.

10. Austin, 1994.

11. Countywide Criminal Justice Coordination Committee, “Impact of the

‘Three Strikes Law’ on the Criminal

Justice System in Los Angeles

County,” November 15, 1995. Because

the jail system is limited in the number of inmates it can house as a result

of a Federal court order and constraints on the sheriff’s budget, the use

of early release mechanisms for lower

risk sentenced offenders has been accelerated to make room for the growing

number of two- and three-strikes

cases. This policy has not increased

the size of the jail population, but it

has changed its composition.

12. State Sheriffs’ Association, Three

Strikes Jail Population Report, 1995.

13. Center for Urban Analysis, Santa

Clara County Office of the County Executive, “Comparing Administration of

the ‘Three-Strikes Law’ in the County

of Los Angeles with Other Large California Counties,” May 1996.

14. In mid-1995 an all-time high of

approximately 3,500 cases were pending in Los Angeles Central District

Court. With the Delay Reduction Program, that backlog was reduced to approximately 1,800 cases by January

1997.

15. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, “ ‘Three Strikes’ Law—

Impact on Jail: Summary Analysis,”

August 31, 1996.

16. Washington Department of

Corrections.

17. California Department of

Corrections.

18. People v. Superior Court (Romero)

(1996), 13 Cal. 4th 497, 53 Cal. Rptr.

2d 789, 917 P.2d 628.

19. The California law requires twostrikers to receive sentences twice as

long as normally expected and to serve

80 percent of their sentences less pretrial custody credits. Three-strikers

must serve their entire sentences.

Prior to the law’s enactment, inmates

served slightly less than 50 percent of

their sentences.

20. Virginia law does provide for the

release of prisoners 65 years of age

and older who have served a specified

period of imprisonment, and a North

Carolina law separate from the threestrikes statute entitles those sentenced

to life without parole to a review of

their sentences after serving 25 years.

Findings and conclusions of the research reported here are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

NCJ 165369

The National Institute of Justice is a

component of the Office of Justice Programs,

which also includes the Bureau of Justice

Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics,

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, and the Office for Victims of

Crime.
15

R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Selected NIJ Publications

About Sentencing Legislation

Listed below are some NIJ publications and videos related to issues of sentencing legislation. The products are free, except

as indicated, and can be obtained from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS): phone 800–851–3420,

e-mail askncjrs@ncjrs.org, or write NCJRS, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000.

These documents also can be downloaded through the NCJRS FTP site in ASCII or graphic formats. They can be viewed

online at the Justice Information Center World Wide Web site. Call NCJRS for more information.

Please note that when free publications are out of stock, they are available as photocopies or through interlibrary loan.

Alternative Sanctions in Germany: An Overview of

Germany’s Sentencing Practices

NIJ Research Preview, 1996

FS 000137

Austin, James, Ph.D.

Sentencing Guidelines: A State Perspective

VHS videotape, 1997

NCJ 164726

(U.S. $19, Canada and other foreign countries $24)

Greenwood, Peter W., Ph.D.

Three Strikes, You’re Out: Benefits and Costs of

California’s New Mandatory Sentencing Law

VHS videotape, 1995

NCJ 152236

(U.S. $19, Canada and other foreign countries $24)

Parent, Dale, Terence Dunworth, Douglas McDonald,

and William Rhodes

Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice:

The Impact of Sentencing Guidelines

NIJ Research in Action, 1996

NCJ 161837

Parent, Dale, Terence Dunworth, Douglas McDonald,

and William Rhodes

Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice: Intermediate Sanctions

NIJ Research in Action, 1997

NCJ 161838

Parent, Dale, Terence Dunworth, Douglas McDonald,

and William Rhodes

Key Legislative Issues in Criminal Justice:

Mandatory Sentencing

NIJ Research in Action, 1997

NCJ 161839

Pfeiffer, Christian, Ph.D.

Sentencing Policy and Crime Rates in

Reunified Germany

VHS videotape, 1995

NCJ 152237

(U.S. $19, Canada and other foreign countries $24)

Tonry, Michael

Intermediate Sanctions in Sentencing

Guidelines

Issues and Practices, May 1997

NCJ 165043
BULK RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/NIJ

Permit No. G–91

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

National Institute of Justice

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Quick Access to NIJ Publication News

For news about NIJ’s most recent publications, including solicitations for grant applications,

subscribe to JUSTINFO, the bimonthly newsletter sent to you via e-mail. Here’s how:

Or check out the “What’s New” section at the Justice Information Center home page:

http://www.ncjrs.org

■ Send an e-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org

■ Leave the subject line blank

■ Type subscribe justinfo your name

 (e.g., subscribe justinfo Jane Doe) in the body of the message