About 100 people gathered to listen to a panel of speakers discuss the two bills dubbed the “Three Strikes” crime bills.

“The people all around the Commonwealth are scared [that crimes] could happen in [their] neighborhood,” said Harvard Law School Professor Charles Ogletree. “That’s what they’re worried about. And that’s a fair worry, but this is not the answer to that worry.”

People’s voices have not been heard, Ogletree said, and a proper bill needs to be passed that considers giving second chances.

A concern opponents discussed was the skyrocketing costs to the taxpayers and its negative effects on the state’s criminal justice system.

Kathleen Dennehy, former Massachusetts Department of Correction commissioner, said her first-hand experiences in the corrections system and 34 years as a warden and commissioner drove her to speak up against the bill.

“Our over-reliance on incarceration comes at a tremendous cost to taxpayers with little or no return on investment,” Dennehy said. “We would not run a business this way . . . and accept these results.”

Since prison is a very expensive sentencing option, the economic cost of this incarceration rate is not sustainable and will leave fewer funds for education, health care and other state priorities, Dennehy said.

Walker cited a 2011 American Civil Liberties Union study on Mississippi’s rehabilitation programs for low-level offenders. The programs cut the prison population at 22 percent and saved $450 million by reserving expensive prison space for violent offenders, she said.

“It makes no sense at all,” Ogletree said. “It’s going to cost us all the things that we don’t have, like jobs, [food and gas].”

However, Carol Rose, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, said there is a human cost linked to this bill.

“We’re not talking about numbers and statistics here,” Rose said. “We’re talking about human beings.”

Leslie Walker, the executive director of Prisoners’ Legal Services, said some legislators who voted for the bill regret it because they were misguided and told “only three or four people would be affected.”

Opponents also said the bill is too broadly defined.

The bill fails to provide an exception, which will give a total lack of discretion needed for each case, Dennehy said. Judges will not consider the facts, nature and time of the crime, the offender’s history or the possible mitigating factors from the previous two strikes.

Walker recalled a case in which a boy, “James,” whose three strikes were, she said, minor offenses.

She said James’ first strike was for taking some change from a car and his second was a hand shake with a friend that was mistaken for a drug exchange.

Finally, he pretended to have a gun to steal $50 from a store, Walker said.

At 25 years old, James was sent to prison for the rest of his life without the possibility of parole, she said, adding these are the real people who will be affected if either bill passes.

Rev. Eugene Rivers III, cofounder of the Boston TenPoint Coalition, said Gov. Deval Patrick needs to play a more constructive role in this discussion and pass a rational bill that balances cost and benefits.

The Commonwealth must have the moral courage to do the right thing when leadership is tempted to do what is ideological and convenient and solely serves its political gains, Rivers said.

Other opponents said there are unjust and unsuccessful natures of the bill, which limits the prospects of individuals to rehabilitate from drug-related crimes.

Only about 2 percent of the Department of Correction’s budget is spent on treatment for addiction treatment and rehabilitation, Walker said.

Dennehy said the racial disparities alone should be a concern to everyone.

“We already know what needs to be done,” Dennehy said. “We simply lack the will and the resources to make it happen.”