The California law was enacted after crime had begun to decline in the State. It was among the most sweeping among all States in that it eliminated probation after the first strike; doubled the sentence for any felony, including minor burglaries, for the second strike; and required sentences of 25 years to life for the third felony conviction. It also reduced good-time credits from 50 percent to 20 percent. Proponents claimed that it would provide both incapacitation and deterrence, would save the costs of reprocessing repeat offenders, and would save costs to victims. Opponents argued that it provided too much prison for older, less dangerous offenders; would increase the demand for jury trials; and would not be more effective than other possible programs in reducing crime. The research used varied data sources and developed a model to predict the law's impact. Results suggested that the legislation would reduce adult crime by 28 percent, would double costs, and would have no impact on juvenile crime. Findings indicated that other alternatives that would achieve most of the benefits at much lower cost would be a two-strike law, a third strike only for violent crimes, or a guaranteed full-sentence law. Findings indicated that little benefit comes from the third strike; that it is costly; and that better alternatives are possible, including using funds for more police or for crime prevention. Findings also indicated that the State budget is so constrained that the law is unlikely to be implemented and that other States considering such laws should first conduct an analysis, make costs and funding sources explicit, target extended sentences to specific offenders, and consider preventive alternatives. Questions from the audience, answers from the speaker, and introduction by National Institute of Justice Director Jeremy Travis