Three strikes laws have received widespread public support. Several issues associated with these laws have been raised, however, and one issue concerns the eighth amendment issue of whether the laws impose cruel and unusual punishment in some cases. Three strikes laws are part of the deterrence- incapacitaiton trend that became prevalent during the 1980's and early 1990's. The laws have abandoned ideas of retributive justice, negated the concept of rehabilitation, and raised questions about whether the selective incapacitation strategy can be justified. Another issue related to three strikes laws involves whether the severe punishment of a portion of convicted offenders will provide more protection for society than the lesser punishment of more offenders. The handling of three strikes cases by the criminal justice system and the courts has surfaced many questions, some of which concern mandatory sentencing. The major policy goal of three strikes laws is to decrease the occurrence of serious crime, but problems associated with imprisoning more offenders are also significant. The authors conclude that three strikes laws involve fewer violent offenders than originally anticipated; that three strikes cases will clog the court system, drive out less severe cases requiring attention, and move civil cases to the bottom of the list of judicial priorities; and that the judicial fairness of three strikes laws needs to be carefully assessed. 29 references and 3 notes