In the early nineties, a "three strikes and you're out" craze swept the nation. Twenty-six states have since enacted mandatory sentencing laws that were supposed to obliterate crime rates by sending repeat offenders, especially violent ones, to prison for as long as possible, or, in many cases, for the rest of their natural lives.

Now, almost 20 years after the first "three strikes" law went on the books, it has become apparent that the laws have done little to lower crime rates – but a lot to ensure that prisons are packed to overflowing and that state budgets are bankrupt. As a result, in the past few years, the vast majority of states have been enacting repeal measures in favor of a more balanced approach to public safety. Even California, the mecca of three strike enthusiasts, has been taking steps (albeit baby ones) to undo the damage of their signature legislation. Which makes it all the more surprising, that just last week, the state of Massachusetts decided to buck the trend by signing its own three strikes bill into law.

The Massachusetts law came to pass the way these kind of sweeping laws generally come to pass – in response to an egregious crime committed by a paroled felon. In this instance, the push for the legislation began back in 1999, following the rape and murder of 27-year-old Melissa Gosule. From 2000 to 2012, "Melissa's Bill" was introduced in each legislative session, but it was not until after the 2010 murder of police officer John Maguire, by another repeat felon, that the law gathered enough momentum to pass.

The desire to enhance public safety and to prevent a reccurrence of such horrible crimes is completely understandable and praiseworthy, but to do so in a manner that has been proven time and again to do little to achieve either goal is, at best, foolhardy and, at worst, a cynical move by politicians wishing to appear tough on crime.

The bill drastically expands the number of felonies that are eligible for life without parole sentences and will require that anyone convicted of a third violent felony will have to serve the full maximum sentence without possibility of parole. The bill also requires that the sentence for a third violent felony conviction will have to be served consecutive to any previous sentence, rather than concurrently. There are numerous other provisions in the bill, but they all amount to the same thing: a lot more prison time for a lot more people, in a state where the prisons are already operating at approximately 145% capacity.

According to Tracy Velazquez, executive director of the Justice Policy Institute, which has authored several reports on three strikes laws (pdf), the bill is almost certain to backfire:

"By creating a justice system based on offense rather than actual risk, you're going to end up sweeping more people into the system who don't need to be there. It looks to us like it's more of a public relations measure than a public safety measure."

Velazquez and others are right to be wary. In California, for instance, the idea that the three strikes law is really about enhancing public safety has become something of a joke (a very sick one), as life sentences have been handed down to so called "dangerous criminals" whose third offenses were no more egregious than stealing a set of golf clubs, robbing a video store, or (my personal favorite) the homeless man who stole food from a soup kitchen. Proponents of the Massachusetts bill claim that the same extremes will not befall them, as only violent felonies count as strikes, but as the definition of what constitutes a violent felony is so broad (home invasion and driving under the influence are on the list), and as judges are allowed no discretion to dismiss any prior strikes, there's reason aplenty to believe that many people will be subjected to the same unreasonable sentences as have been handed out in California and other states.

It seems that Massachusett's Governor Deval Patrick had some reservations about the bill and asked the state supreme court to take a look at it. Chief Justice Roderick Ireland duly got back to him and said, in essence, that the bill was more than a little flawed. His main concerns were the lack of judicial discretion and the bar on parole for so many offenders.

A team of researchers at Harvard law school also examined the bill and released a comprehensive report (pdf) on its merits (or more accurately the lack of). They concluded that the bill would cost taxpayers an additional $125m a year; would impose unnecessarily harsh sentences on low-level offenders, overwhelming the already overcrowded prisons; would unfairly impact communities of color, particularly African Americans who are already overrepresented in the prison population; and would divert precious resources away from education and job creation, which are ultimately far more effective means of reducing crime. Said Benjamin Thompson, executive director of the Criminal Justice Policy Commission:

"You would think that when you have the state supreme court and Harvard law [school] give you their opinion, and it both cases the opinion is that this is a bad law, it seems that would be enough for you to put the brakes on and have a rethink."

Unfortunately, Governor Patrick ignored the warnings and, apparently under pressure from members of the state legislature (many of whom are up for re-election shortly), signed the bill into law. If being seen as soft on crime doesn't sit well with voters, it remains to be seen whether being stupid on crime works any better.