Literature Review Three Strikes: Original Intent Repeat offenders are perhaps the most difficult offender population for the system to manage, and “protecting communities from these offenders can be the most emotionally and politically demanding challenge to the criminal justice system” (Dickey & Hollenhorst, 1999). Although most states had statutes targeting professional criminals, politicians and the public continued to push for harsher punishments for repeat offenders throughout the twentieth century (Brown & Jolivette, 2005). As a result, harsh sentencing laws were enforced, such as the three strikes laws which required that a person convicted of a crime, who had a prior conviction for one or more crimes, receive a sentence enhancement (Brown & Jolivette, Essentially, c It is a basic assumption that offenders rationally choose to commit a crime and that they are all treated fairly during the judicial process. However, these assumptions are questionable when evaluating three strikes laws, which are not always consistently enforced uniform has come under scrutiny for raising concerns about its legality and constitutionality The lack of clarity on three strikes laws has raised questions about “juvenile convictions without the right to a jury trial as a strike, and whether courts have the authority to repel a strike. third crime case, whether crimes committed in other states can be counted as strikes,” and so on (Brown & Jolivette, 2005, p.1). punishment, as a repeat offender can be sentenced to 25 years or life in prison for a conviction of a nonserious or nonviolent crime (Brown & Jolivette, 2005). Some also believe that three strikes violates the “rule of proportionality” in sentencing, because the sentence does not fit the crime, as “a relatively minor crime committed by a repeat offender could result in a much harsher punishment than a violent crime committed by a first time offender” (Brown & Jolivette, 2005,