[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 48 (Thursday, April 28, 1994)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 28, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              WHERE ``THREE STRIKES'' HAS CHANGED THE ODDS

                                 ______


                           HON. NEWT GINGRICH

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, April 28, 1994

  Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I would like to share an article with my 
colleagues from the Washington Times. I hope they find Pete Du Pont's 
article as enlightening as I did.

              [From the Washington Times, March 27, 1994]

               Where `Three Strikes' Has Changed the Odds

                            (By Pete DuPont)

       No one would argue that crime is not a threat to Americans' 
     daily lives. Twenty-four million people each year are victims 
     of serious crime. A young black male is more likely to die by 
     violence than any other cause. And millions of our children 
     go to bed each night to the sound of gunfire as vast sectors 
     of our cities are effectively controlled by criminals.
       In too many neighborhoods, crime overwhelms all else--
     school, home and work environments are often helpless in its 
     grip.
       And no one would argue that this violence is not imposing a 
     terrible cost upon society, in pain, suffering, trauma and 
     dollars.
       But there are those who will argue it is not really the 
     criminal's fault, that they are but victims of various ``root 
     causes'' of their behavior--urban decay, poverty, parental 
     inattention, etc. In the words of Attorney General Janet 
     Reno: ``One of the principal reasons for violence is that we 
     have forgotten and neglected our children.''
       For 30 years, the liberal response to the rising tide of 
     criminal violence has been therapeutic: Understand, help and 
     rehabilitate the criminal.
       But rehabilitation is proving a mirage. We like to think it 
     works, but a 1975 study by City College of New York sociology 
     professor Robert Martinson reviewed the results of 200 
     separate rehabilitation programs and concluded that the 
     efforts ``had no appreciable effect on recidivism.''
       Punishment, on the other hand, is viewed by some liberals 
     as excessive (we lock up more people than any civilized 
     nation), ineffective (jail just teaches people how to be 
     criminals) or vindictive.
       Rep. Kweisi Mfume, Maryland Democrat, chairman of the House 
     of Representative's Black Caucus, dismisses prisons as ``an 
     antiquated approach to crime.'' Strong punishment statutes, 
     in the words of former Deputy Attorney General Philip 
     Heymann, often ``look tougher than they are smart.''
       Even Louis Freeh, director of the FBI, America's foremost 
     crimefighting organization, is an apologist: ``The crime and 
     disorder which flow from helpless poverty, unloved children 
     and drug abuse can't be solved merely by bottomless prisons, 
     mandatory sentencing minimums or more police.''
       But the negative correlation between crime and punishment 
     is striking. Criminals make their own rough comparisons of 
     the expected benefits of crime against the expected costs to 
     decide whether crime pays, just as any rational person weighs 
     decisions in other areas of life. If the anticipated 
     probability of punishment is high, fewer crimes are 
     committed.
       Morgan Reynolds, an economics professor at Texas A&M 
     University and a senior fellow of the National Center for 
     Policy Analysis, has developed a measure called ``expected 
     punishment'' to gauge anticipated punishment probabilities.
       Expected punishment is calculated by multiplying the 
     probability of being arrested for a crime after it is 
     committed, of being prosecuted if arrested, of being 
     convicted if prosecuted and of going to prison if convicted.
       The result is multiplied by the median time served for an 
     offense--and the resulting figure is the expected punishment.
       This measuring stick shows that as the expected punishment 
     for serious crimes was dropping from 22.5 days in 1954 to 5.5 
     days in 1974, the crime rate was increasing from 1.2 to 4.9 
     serious crimes per 100 population. The serious crimes rate 
     has since leveled off at 5.9 as the expected punishment index 
     has risen back up to 8.5 days.
       If you still doubt the value of punishment, consider the 
     experience of California and Texas during the 1980s. 
     California, with far more people, began the decade with fewer 
     incarcerated criminals than Texas--and a crime rate that was 
     28 percent higher. But over the decade California began 
     arresting, convicting and jailing more of its criminals. Its 
     prison population rose 400 percent. In Texas, however, fewer 
     criminals went to jail; its prison population grew by 73 
     percent.
       By 1991, California not only had almost twice as many 
     prisoners as Texas, but also had a crime rate that was 13 
     percent lower than Texas'.
       Raising the cost of crime by making sure people go to 
     prison when they commit crimes will not only get practicing 
     criminals off the street, but also deter crime by making it 
     clear to prospective criminals that if they commit a crime, 
     it is going to cost them.
       The state of Washington's ``Three Strikes Law'' is a good 
     example. Enacted by the voters in November, the law 
     dramatically raises the stakes for people convicted of a 
     third felony--to life imprisonment without parole.
       Former Deputy Attorney General Heymann called it ``a bad 
     idea being spread as far and as fast as it could be.'' But in 
     Seattle alone, 17 registered sex offenders have moved out of 
     state because, as the author of the initiative states, 
     ``their next offense (in Washington) would be their last.''
       While there are those who still don't get it, the rest of 
     us do: Punishment and the consistent threat of punishment 
     work. They deter crime.

                          ____________________