PETALING JAYA: The three-strikes rule should only be used for serious criminals and not petty offenders, say lawyers and criminologists, who stressed that the courts should still be given discretion on punishments without being tied to mandatory sentences.

Also, such a rule, which is being proposed by the police, could worsen prison overcrowding when lengthy sentences are handed down without possibility of parole.

This is since such laws often prescribe longer prison sentences for a criminal’s third offence, they said.

Criminologist Datuk Dr P. Sundramoorthy of Universiti Sains Malaysia said a three-strikes rule is aimed at deterring criminals from becoming repeat offenders as each subsequent offence caries a longer prison sentence.

“It holds individuals accountable for repeated wrongdoings and warns that recidivism would not be tolerated.

“Criminals who repeatedly commit serious offences and have shown little regard for earlier punishments should be kept incarcerated for longer durations,” said Sundramoorthy of USM’s Centre for Policy Research.

“However, it must be imposed carefully as it is only appropriate for serious crime offenders and not petty criminals like shoplifters or shoe thieves,” he told The Star.

The three-strikes rule was first introduced in the United States about three decades ago and mandates significantly harsher penalties for habitual offenders with the primary goal of reducing a repeat of criminal behaviour.

Under the law, habitual offenders who are convicted especially for committing serious criminal offences more than three times could face extended or maximum jail terms including life sentences.

He said the law could also encourage criminals to consider turning over a new leaf and avoid lengthy jail terms for repeat offences.

“It may also save court costs in the long run as there will be less time spent in prosecuting repeat offenders”.

According to Sundramoorthy, despite these advantages, such a rule may worsen overcrowding in prisons and undermine efforts to rehabilitate criminals.

“If handed life sentences without the possibility of parole, there is less incentive for them to engage in rehabilitation programmes aimed at reforming their behaviour.

“Lengthy incarcerations can lead to significant mental health issues like depression, anxiety, and a sense of hopelessness,” Sundramoorthy said.

Ex-Bar Council president Salim Bashir says emulating the spirit of Section 39(C) of the Dangerous Drugs Act for other crimes can lead to long incarcerations.

“Repeat offenders can be better curbed if government and enforcement agencies adopt a rehabilitative approach rather than longer penal sentences,” said Salim.

The courts must be given discretion to sentence an accused based on individual facts and judicial principles upon taking into account the mitigating and deterrent factors, without being tied to mandatory sentences, he added.

Mandatory imprisonment will result in taxpayers’ money being spent to maintain inmates and also contributes to prison overcrowding, Salim said.

Joel Chua, a legal assistant from Daljit Singh partnership, echoed these sentiments saying that the rule may also remove judges’ power to assess each case on its merits, potentially leading to unjust outcomes.

“In cases where mental illness or extreme poverty contributes to repeated offending, judges should be empowered to evaluate the mitigating factors on a case-by-case basis rather than being constrained by rigid rules,” he said.

Malaysia Crime Prevention Foundation senior vice-chairman Datuk Seri Ayub Yaakob said any potential introduction of the three-strikes rule must be carefully considered to avoid possible injustice.

“We advocate for a balanced approach that includes rehabilitation and support to address the root causes of criminal behaviour,” he said.

This article first appeared on The Star.