Undoubtedly, “3 strikes” as a concept remains popular.  But dig a little deeper and there are a lot of questions:

The San Jose Mercury News reported last week that a group is crafting ballot language and seeking high-profile endorsements for an initiative that would require that a third strike result only from a serious or violent felony conviction. Under California’s law, a third strike can be assessed for any felony, at times bringing sentences of 25 years to life prison for those convicted of crimes like petty theft.

On the same day the Mercury News article published, the Field Poll released survey results (PDF) showing 74 percent of registered voters would support altering the three-strikes law.

Thing is, back in 2006, Prop 66 had similar support before a horde of DAs and “ToughOnCrime” folks decided that discretion for judges just wasn’t necessary.  Apparently we need a hard and fast rule that locks up thousands of people for sometimes rather petty crimes.  The current 3-strikes prison count is at about 6% of the prison population, or about 8800 prisoners.

We should hear something about this proposed change to the policy, and then we can proceed on whether it is a step in the right direction.  But at this point, it is hard to see how anything could be worse than what we’re doing.

( – promoted by SFBrianCL)

The story of Santos Reyes is a bizarre one.  Reyes was thrown into prison under the 3 Strikes for CHEATING ON A DMV TEST.  Yes, I meant to Yell that.  That, my friends, is a travesty of justice of the worst kind.  The case is currently being reviewed by the courts as to whether this sentence violates the 8th Amendment’s prohibition of Cruel and Unusual Punishment.

Now, I’m no lawyer (oh, wait, yes I am), but this is not a tough question.  But, you see, it’s a struggle for Arnold.  Should he involve himself? Would that piss off his base?

Could the governor’s loose lips spring a man from prison? The National Latino Congreso held in Los Angeles last week may have laid out a blueprint for how Arnold Schwarzenegger could recoup some of his lost ground with Latino voters. On Thursday, the day before the Los Angeles Times reported racially questionable comments by the governor, Congreso participants unanimously approved a resolution calling on Schwarzenegger to free a Latino prisoner imprisoned under California’s three-strikes law for cheating on a Department of Motor Vehicles exam.

The Reyes’ case has drawn the attention of anti-three-strikes activists because his supporters say it is a prime example of the law being used to give long sentences to offenders who pose no public threat.

Reyes first strike consisted of stealing a boom box out of a house in 1981 when he was 17. His second strike came five years later when he was convicted of robbery. Prosecutors said Reyes threatened someone with a roofing knife during that crime, something Reyes has denied. He then had no offenses for the next 11 years, a period in which he worked steadily, got married and fathered two children. At no time, his supporters note, did he ever actually attack anyone. (CapWeekly 9/14/2006)

For a moment, ignoring the overcrowding problem, 3 strikes is just a simple violation of human rights.  Reyes is something of a modern-day Jean Valjean with supporters such as his legal counsel Matt Gonzales, the former SF Supervisor. 

3 Strikes is just plain wrong.

Dem. Sen. Gloria Romero, disappointed after her 3 strikes reform bill, SB 1642, died, has begun hinting that a reform package might appear on the ballot, possibly in 2008.

Senator Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, and L.A. District Attorney Steve Cooley say it is “highly likely” that voters will see another initiative designed to change the state’s three-strikes sentencing law in 2008. The pair, who worked together this year on a stalled Senate proposal to change the law, said they still think voters are ready to alter the sentencing policy.
  *  *  *
Three strikes was moved to the top of many district attorneys’ priority lists by Proposition 66 in 2004. This measure was narrowly defeated by voters after a late full court press by law enforcement groups and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Cooley opposed that measure, saying it went much too far in terms of eliminating third-strike offenses.

However, he said, it got him thinking about the need for reform. This led to a Dec. 3, 2004, meeting in San Francisco between himself, San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris and Alameda District Attorney Tom Orloff. Cooley said the meeting spurred him to write numerous measures, including 1642 and a currently-active ballot measure, number 1213, on the secretary of state’s Web site. Cooley said that after consulting recently with campaign consultant John Shallman, he decided there was not time qualify the initiative this year.  (Capitol Weekly 7/27/06)

The initiative and statute have not made Cooley any friends within the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA) either.  It’s not hard to understand why a bunch of district attorneys would oppose a 3 strikes reform effort, after all the “tough on crime” people will vilify you for your efforts.  But Romero and Cooley are working to see that some three strikes reform happens, and that’s a credit to them in that they are standing up for their principles and helping reform the prison system where it really needs it: in sentencing.

SB 1642 had some holes, as most bills like this do.  However, it would have gone a long way towards not only reducing the three strikes population but also towards discussing further sentencing reform.  Prop 36, the drug rehab instead of prison initiative, is being attacked on all sides, but the fact remains that it has been far more successful than locking drug addicts up.  Now is the time to consider some truly bold reforms in an attempt to build a correction and rehabilitation system that will be stable in the long-term.  And three strikes reform would be a good first step towards these goals.

I was going through PowerPAC’s April poll and just noticed the question regarding 3 Strikes.  Politicians seem to think it’s some sort of third rail.  It’s not:

Changing three strikes and you’re out law: 71 percent of Anglos and 78 percent of Latinos support changing the current law, with Latinos much more likely to strongly support changing the law (61% strongly support), though Anglos still strongly support changing it with just shy of a majority (48%) strongly supporting this change. Only 26 percent of Anglos and 19 percent of Latinos oppose changing the law. (PowerPAC 4/06)

I would like to see some honest debate about this issue in the gubenatorial election.  Our prisons will not be fixed by merely building more.  Revisions of 3 strikes and drug laws are necessary to add rehabilitation capacity.  Our rate of recidivism (70%) is outrageous, and locking people up in prisons where the only thing they learn is new crime skills is not the answer.