>True. However, we need to realize that the expressed criticism of the "three - strike" laws is based on misguided assumption. They seem to assume than any harsh punishment will drive criminals toward more serious crimes - which is a hogwash model of criminal behavior based on the rat-choice approach. Hence, the higher the "cost" we inflict upon them, the more benefits they want to obtain from their criminal activity. If this were true, we should abandon punishing them altogether to avoid pissing them off and committing more serious offences.
You're missing the point. It isn't about cost/benefit, the only "benefit" of murder to avoid detection is that one avoids punishment.
It is only common sense to predict that higher penalties for minor crimes will lead to people committing more serious crimes. But the motivation for the more serious crimes is to avoid detection, rather than to obtain some extra criminal benefit.
Of course there are other factors. Higher penalties won't always lead to more serious crimes. Obviously that will depend on the risk of detection and prosecution. If people perceive that they won't be caught and punished, then higher penalties will have no effect whatsoever. But if you are assuming that criminals, faced with Draconian penalties, will not kill a witness to avoid detection, especially if it substantially reduces their risk of detection while only marginally increasing the potential penalty, you are hiding your head in the sand my friend. One doesn't need to be a rocket scientist to work that out.
>The problem with the three strike laws is that they limit judicial discretion in meting out justice and force judges to give long sentences to petty criminals.
A problem yes, but also the intended outcome.
> This may have a positive effect on the seriousness of committed crimes,
It MAY, but deterrence only works where the potential criminal perceives a strong chance of being detected. Obviously if you don't expect to be caught, you aren't going to care what the penalty might be. Deterrence also doesn't work if the offender is simply unable to comprehend the nature of the penalty.
> but only after the petty criminals are released from prison (on the assumption that they become hardened and learn new skills from other inmates). This effect, however, cannot be demonstrated with the data used in the study - you would need a panel design for that (e.g tracking individual criminals before and after their three strikes sentence) and thus a much loner time lag.
Yes, but it is such an obvious consequence that one would have to be very anal indeed to insist on conclusive evidence before concluding that it would be so. This is an instance where one can take the view that, unless there is some conclusive scientific evidence to the contrary, we should operate on the assumption that criminals will commit murder to avoid detection for petty crimes, if the penalties for petty crimes are Draconian.
Everyone except Draco himself can see that.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas