Redstate

By Darleen Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

California has had one of the strictest Three Stikes laws in the nation. This has earned it a certain amount of animosity and hostility from the usual apologists for convicted criminals. 60 Minutes II did a story highlighting a particular 3 strikes case in July 2003. (I remember this one because Dan Rather was at our courthouse filming some of this story). Of course the story was presented as this poor guy who is serving a 50 year sentence for stealing $150 worth of video tapes from a KMart. However, the story rarely delved into what this career criminal had been doing most of his life -- victimizing others. Think of Al Capone who's final downfall was being convicted of tax evasion, even as all the thuggery and murders he had committed were near impossible to prosecute. The three strikes law is a way for society to address career criminals.

The impetus behind the 3 Strikes Law was the infamous kidnapping and murder of Polly Klaas by career criminal Richard Allen Davis. It became unacceptable for someone to serve a few years here and a few years there, a long rolling list of crime and victims and continue to be let loose on an unsuspecting community to prey, yet again.

That is one trait all three-strikers share. They are predators.

What is it that the anti-strikers say? That it is "not fair" that some schlub be sentenced 25 years to life just because he "stole a piece of pizza?"

The "pizza" story has grown apocryphal in its numerous retellings. It seems "everyone" has heard of the poor guy serving a life's sentence for merely stealing a slice pizza. Mon dieu, Jacques! Have you ever hear of such a thing? In California you could be sent up le fleuve for getting caught stealing a piece of bread! How...how... Les Miserables!

Well, the actual case of Jerry Williams is just a tad different. And so is the reality of 3 Strikes Law compared to the perception.

Quite simply, the first two strikes must be felonies defined as "serious" or "violent." Murder, rape, robbery, gang crimes, felonies involving great bodily injury are all included in the state's designation of "serious" or "violent." The third strike, the felony that triggers the third strike prosecution, can be any felony. And while this still may seem "harsh" to some, what must be kept in mind is that prosecutors and judges have great leeway in looking over a defendant's record with the discretion to "strike a strike." When this happens, the defendant may be sentenced under a two-striker provision that doubles the normative sentence rather than triggering the 25 to life sentencing. Strikes also affect time served credits. For a non-strike felony, good-time credits can amount to 50% of time served. Under a strike conviction, 85% of time must be served.

What, in essence, the state of California is saying is that after two serious or violent felonies, you have either learned your lesson and will start being a productive member in society, or you will be designated a predator on your community and be removed from it -- maybe for the rest of your life. With the option to "strike a strike," there remains a great deal of discretion for those who may decide, after review, that the furtherance of justice demands forgoing the third strike.

Of course there are those that would say, even knowing this, they don't want a non-serious felony as the triggering event. They want all three strikes to be "serious" or "violent." I can understand and even respect such a position. However, that's not what Prop. 66 is promising. An insidious part of the proposition is the removal of six crimes from "serious" or "violent" felonies list.

• Residential burglary (unless someone other than an accomplice is in the residence  at the time of the burglary)




• Attempted residential burglary




• Arson of a structure, forestland or property




• Criminal threats




• Felony gang crimes




• Felonies in which great bodily injury is inflicted, including drunk driving  (unless the defendant specifically intends to and personally inflicts great bodily injury)

Now, look at the list again and see the crimes that will no longer be consider "strikes", no longer considered "serious" or "violent" crimes.

Set fire to brush that burns down homes? No strike. If the fire harms anyone or kills them? No strike (unless the prosecution can prove there was an intent to harm the people through the setting of the fire).

A little more than a year ago, fires raged through Southern California. Many of them were set. My co-worker's father, a fireman, was out fighting fires, while his own home burned to the ground. My children's friends north of us had to evacuate from huge seething walls of fire that marched down the hills and into neighborhoods. My family readied to evacuate (we were lucky we did not get the call). The streets were thick with white ash, giving an eerie sense of snow falling from a sky burnt orange and angry from the smoke.

Under 66, causing such conflagration would no longer be considered "serious" or "violent." No strike here! People killed, burned alive in their car trying to flee this arson fire? People burned severely enough to spend months in the hospital? Sorry, GBI (great bodily injury) is no longer serious or violent, either. All in the interest of making sure no pizza-stealing Jean Valjeans are sentenced to Folsom by mustache-twirling prosecutors.

Now, take a look again at the last bullet. The GBI and how it applies to injury, even death, committed during a DUI. After all the years we have spent of moving the law and society's mindset to the place that driving under the influence is very serious and will be treated as the serious crime it is. Doesn't it seem just a little strange that suddenly causing death and injury while DUI is to be shuttled out of the "serious" or "violent" category?

Not really too strange when one considers just who is financing Prop. 66:

Jerry Keenan, who owns a Sacramento insurance company, has contributed more than $1.5 million to pay for the signature gatherers who helped qualify Proposition 66 for the November ballot. ...

In 1999, while intoxicated, Richard Keenan drove a Lexus about 20 miles over the speed limit with three passengers on a winding road in the Sierra foothills near Sacramento. His car crashed, killing two passengers and injuring the third. ...

"No one should be faced with the prospect of a doubled or 25-years-to-life sentence because of nonviolent acts, let alone accidental acts," he [Jerry Keenan] said.[emphasis added]

Isn't this fun? Daddy thinks son is serving too much in prison. A whole eight years and a strike on his record. Just too harsh for killing two other people. Perfectly understandable that daddy would bankroll a Proposition that will gut much of the 3 Strikes Law so sonny boy won't be so inconvenienced.

Did you know that this Proposition is retroactive to 1994? That's right. Ten years of cases,both second and third strikes that are going to suddenly be up for review and resentencing. Resentencings that will have to take place between 30 and 180 days if Prop 66 passes.

I walked into our file room at work and gazed, depressed, at the 25 plus boxes of three strike cases. I don't even want to think of the more recent years of three strike cases on the shelves or all the second striker cases or that our computer system only goes back to about mid-1997, every thing else being on a legacy system or card file. And if we can not get them all done in a timely manner, just who is going to be released upon the community we serve?

Even more important is the very frightening thought of the people who are going to be released either immediately or very shortly after the passage.

Be very afraid and take a look at these murderers, rapists and child molesters who have been so "unjustly convicted" under California's 3 strikes law.

Mr. Keenan, I'm sure you'll have no problem with them moving into your neighborhood?

cross-posted at Darleen's Place