Yes On 593: Three Strikes And You're Out

SIX months ago I released the "Index of Leading Cultural Indicators" and concluded that over the last 30 years America has experienced substantial social regression.

Almost all of the trends I analyzed - illegitimate births, divorce rates, child abuse, teen suicides, welfare dependency, SAT scores and others - have gotten worse. Most have gotten a lot worse.

But it is the explosion of violent crime in America that is most alarming. Since 1960 the population has increased 41 percent, and violent crime has increased 560 percent. Today the rate of violent crime in the U.S. is worse than in any other industrialized country.

Recently the citizens of Washington state took matters in their own hands by placing Initiative 593, The Persistent Offenders Accountability Act, on the November ballot. "Three Strikes, You're Out" (as it is popularly known) would place criminals convicted of their third violent felony in prison for life, with no chance for parole, probation or work release.

I strongly support Initiative 593, for the following reasons:

First, Initiative 593 will help restore safety to an increasingly violence-ridden state. According to data released in 1991, Washington has the sixth-highest serious crime rate in the nation. In 1992 violent crime increased 7.4 percent and in 1993, felony arrests are growing at a record pace.

Under the current - and I believe far too lenient - Washington state guidelines, a man convicted of first-degree rape with two prior convictions for violent crimes will typically serve less than 15 years; a person convicted of first-degree robbery with two prior convictions for violent crimes will typically serve three to five-and-a-half years; and a person convicted of murder with two prior convictions will typically serve under 20 years. "Three Strikes, You're Out" would change all that.

Second, Initiative 593 is intelligent public policy. It targets the very small percentage of violent criminals who are responsible for an extraordinarily high percentage of violent crimes. Studies show that fewer than 10 percent of violent criminals commit more than two-thirds of all violent crimes. If we can keep these predators off the streets and behind bars, we will begin to make a significant dent in the crime rate.

Third, Initiative 593 will advance social justice. All over America today minorities and inner-city residents suffer disproportionately from violent crime. For example, while blacks account for only 5 percent of King County's population, more than 40 percent of all homicide victims in 1991 were black. The current criminal justice system is not providing equal protection under the law.

The most immediate problem facing inner-city residents is crime. John J. DiIulio Jr. of Princeton University has written that the essential difference between the middle class and many of those who reside in urban neighborhoods is that the middle class "can avoid what (the underclass) cannot escape; we can drive quickly past the crime-torn streets where they must walk, live and cope."

We will not see families, neighborhoods, schools, churches or local economies flourish in communities where predatory street criminals are in control.

Fourth, Initiative 593 underscores the proper philosophical case for punishment by ensuring proper and just punishment for repeat violent offenders. The enormous jump in crime during the late 1960s and 1970s corresponded with increasingly lenient sentences, as courts sought to "rehabilitate" rather than punish criminals. I do not subscribe to the belief that the first purpose of punishment is to rehabilitate. The first purpose is moral, to protect innocent people and to exact a price for transgressing the rights of others.

Stanley Brubaker of Colgate University points out that "punishment, like praise, publicly expresses our determination of what people deserve." A civil society that is reluctant to protect innocent people by punishing criminals, administering justice and expressing proper moral outrage is not going to last.

Opponents of Initiative 593 are likely to trot out two tired arguments. One is that the cost of incarceration is too high. But the estimate is that if "Three Strikes, You're Out" passes, it will affect 30 to 60 hard-core criminals a year, which the prison system can easily absorb.

This may not be a large number, but it will matter a great deal. Thirty to 60 hard-core criminals can do a lot of damage. And while it is true that incarceration is expensive - the average annual cost of incarcerating an inmate is $25,000 - the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that the average annual cost to society of allowing a career criminal to roam free is $430,000. That figure does not take into account the non-economic - and far more tragic - cost of violent crime.

A second criticism is that keeping prisoners behind bars will not solve the crime problem because you are merely "warehousing" criminals. But criminals have to stay somewhere. Where exactly do the critics think they should go? Maybe they're willing to volunteer to have killers, rapists and armed robbers stay at their place, but they should not be left free to prey on innocent people. Critics should remember that the government's first responsibility is ensuring the safety of its citizens from "all enemies, foreign and domestic." Those who terrorize the lives of law-abiding citizens are, by any measure, enemies; the public deserves protection against them.

Crime rates are so high because too often, under the current system, crime pays. Nationwide, three out of every four convicted criminals are not incarcerated and fewer than 10 percent of all serious crimes result in jail time.

This is an outrage. We need to change the odds back in society's favor.

Over the last quarter-century Americans have become far too tolerant of criminal activity, and we have suffered enormously for it.

It's time to fight back. "Three Strikes, You're Out" is a start in that fight. It is an initiative that sends some important, and long-overdue, messages: crime is wrong, criminals should be held accountable, and punishment is the just result of violence against innocents.

William J. Bennett, former Secretary of Education and President Bush's first "drug czar," is now co-director of Empower America, a conservative advocacy group.