Sharon Kim Kim is a second-year biology
student. Send your rhyme or reason to [email protected]. Click
Here for more articles by Sharon Kim
For lack of something more cliché, California’s
“Three Strikes and You’re Out” law has “¦
struck out.
On Jan. 14 Assembly member Jackie Goldberg (D ““ 45th
district) introduced a bill to amend California’s Three
Strikes law.
The current law, which went into effect in March 1994, was meant
to target habitual felons, to keep them off the streets for good.
If an individual with two existing strikes commits a third felony,
a mandatory 25-year-to-life prison sentence is automatically handed
down.
If passed, Assembly Bill 1790 will limit the Three Strikes law
to violent and serious felonies. It will also require resentencing
for those who were previously convicted of non-violent and minor
offenses under the current law.
Seems like common sense, doesn’t it? Limiting harsh
punishments to those that commit really serious crimes? Not so.
A genius feature of the current Three Strikes law is its
specific but shady list of violent crimes that count as strikes.
The list includes crimes ranging from murder to rape and robbery.
It means a person with, say, two felony convictions, could be
jailed for life if their third strike is stealing a piece of
pizza.
That’s what happened to Jerry Williams.
Fortunately, Williams successfully appealed in 1997 and received
a 20-year reduction in his sentence, but only after one of
Williams’ prior convictions was dismissed, making the pizza
robbery only a second-strike conviction.
Was this an isolated incident? Not really. The organization,
Families to Amend California’s Three-Strikes, lists a hundred
more examples of similar incidents on their Web site.
The current law still does not leave any room for consideration
of what kind of felonies have been committed. Sentencing 25 years
to life for theft, petty theft, because there have been previous
convictions is not only ridiculous, it’s cruel and unusual
punishment.
It’s impractical, too. If pizza burglars are taking up
room in already crowded prisons, where do the really hardened
criminals go? Looks like we need new prisons. Well, there goes
millions of dollars.
When current Secretary of State, then-Assembly member Bill Jones
introduced Three Strikes, it promised everything ““ lower
rates of violent crimes, safer streets, etc.
 Illustration by Kristen Gillette/Daily Bruin But whether
the Three Strikes law has resulted in an actual decline in crime
levels is dubious, despite the Nov. 2, 2001 news release by Jones
asserting the law has helped “reduce crime by 41 percent in
its first six years.” Jones just wanted something to brag
about during his bid for the Republican gubernatorial nomination,
no doubt.
Data from the California Crime Index, available on the state
attorney general’s Web site, shows a noticeable downward
trend in violent crimes since 1993, a year before the Three Strikes
law was enacted. Other factors could also be attributed to the fall
in crime levels, such as Bill Clinton’s 1994 Crime Bill,
which increased the number of cops on the streets.
The first major legal blow to Three Strikes came in June 1996,
when the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled that judges
could overlook a defendant’s prior convictions counting as
strikes “in the interest of justice.”
Under the mandatory sentencing feature, Three Strikes judges
were expected to regularly give a criminal with two existing felony
charges the maximum sentence.
But the 1996 ruling gave the interpretation powers the
Constitution guarantees back to the courts.
It was common sense. Judges need the discretion of deciding
whether a third crime committed is ruthless and dangerous enough to
justify such a severe sentence.
But even with the 1996 ruling, Three Strikes still contains
weaknesses. For example, the ruling does not require reexamination
for those individuals who may have already been unjustly sentenced
before June 1996. And the California Supreme Court ruling did not
result in less third-strike rulings. In fact, the number of inmates
in prison as a result of being sentenced under Three Strikes has
been steadily increasing, with the California Department of
Corrections projecting that second- and third-strike prison
population will exceed 55,000 by 2002.
The details of Three Strikes itself need to be amended so this
type of frivolous sentencing cannot happen again and resentencing
will not be necessary.
To pass, AB 1790 will need a majority vote by the legislators,
the signature of the governor and the majority of the electorate in
the election primary of March 2004.
With a poll paid for by FACTS and Citizens Against Violent Crime
showing “over 60 percent of California voters would vote for
changes” in the current Three Strikes law, it would behoove
gubernatorial candidates to remember amending Three Strikes is not
a question of opinion, but also one that may determine their
election.