With regard to three strikes laws, if certainty, severity, and swiftness of punishment are the key prongs of deterrence, it is clear that most gang suppression legislation is ineffective. Severity is increased for second and third strikes, but severity essentially takes the form of belated incapacitation. Certainty of punishment is only slightly increased because three strikes laws do nothing to affect the likelihood of detection, apprehension, and court conviction. In addition, three strikes laws do not encourage alternative behavior. Disjunctures between legal provisions and behavioral realities mean law enforcement will often apply three strikes laws inappropriately, inaccurate depictions of gangs will become widespread and further decrease the deterrent credibility of three strikes laws, and numerous defense challenges will needlessly be upheld. Provisions of California's Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act and gang dynamics that affect suppression legislation such as three strikes laws are discussed. Gang issues in court cases are addressed according to the categories of gang suppression and gang dynamics. 16 references and 3 notes