Three Strikes and We're All Out

Samuel Walker, in his article Three Strikes - We Are All Out, presents a studied critique of mandatory sentences under the laws known collectively as “three strikes and you’re out” (1). According to Walker, the mandatory sentencing laws are severely flawed. Walker claims that the “three strikes idea has been almost universally condemned by criminologists” (1). Walker also cites the negative impacts that enforcement of the laws has on local criminal justice systems, including over crowding, and expense. He also alleges that proponents of the three strikes laws have exaggerated the amount of crime by eligible offenders, and that enforcement of the laws have netted people guilty of mostly minor offenses. Walker’s paper represents a growing voice in the criminal justice community. 

Walker’s assertion that the three strikes idea has been “almost universally condemned by criminologists and other experts on sentencing” is disturbing. What it seems to really mean is that the idea of three strikes has been universally condemned by those who think like Walker. There is debate, in most disciplines, on a great deal of topics. The statement that it is almost universally condemned really means that there is a substantial group that supports the measures. Walker claims that few support it, but neglects to mention that among those who do support it are listed some of the preeminent names in the field - Hirschi, Gottfreedson, Biller, etc. By marginalizing those who agree with the three strikes proposition, Walker use rhetorical tricks and misdirection to enforce his point of view.