In recent years, many States have passed legislation that mandates a sentence of life imprisonment for repeat offenders who are convicted of serious violent crimes. The rationales for such laws are that if there are fewer criminals at large, there will be fewer victims; and because career criminals have shown their inability to benefit from corrections programs, they should be locked up permanently. "Three strikes" statutes vary from State to State in the offenses that qualify as a "strike," the process of determining how many "strikes" are needed to be "out," the sanctions for "striking out," and the amount of judicial discretion allowed in applying "three strikes" law. Further, the application of "three strikes" law varies within the same State based on regional voter support and the use of prosecutorial discretion. The impact of "three strikes" laws from a cost- benefit basis is a subject of debate. Advocates cite that the costs saved from preventing the crimes that would have been committed by imprisoned habitual offenders far outweighs the cost of their long-term incarceration. Opponents argue that studies show (specifically, a RAND study) that if the money spent in incarcerating repeat offenders were to be spent on crime prevention programs, there would be even more cost-benefit. A 1997 nationwide survey by the Justice Policy Institute determined that "three strikes" legislation has had minimal impact on the Nation's crime rate. The results were based on data that showed States with active "three strikes" laws had less of a decline in violent crime than States without the law. Crime victims and service providers should explore the opportunities they may have under "three strikes" initiatives.