Perhaps I'm missing something, but this seems to be a patently stupid conclusion to draw from these data. The author states that the benefit of the three strikes rule is that recidivism rates do indeed fall after the first and second offenses, by 14% and 28% respectively. "But that's where the good news ends."

Oh, really? How about the reduction in recidivism after the third strike?

Oh, yeah, a 100% reduction over the next 25 years. That seems like pretty good news to me.