Voters may throw out 'three strikes' law

[T_i_B]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=SNLMZLH4V0UAVQFIQMFCM5OAVCBQYJVC?xml=/news/2004/09/25/wstrik25.xml&sSheet=/portal/2004/09/25/ixportal.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=49141

Across America, 26 states followed suit with imitations of the three-strike law. But California's remains the toughest. Nowhere else can a third strike be triggered by a non-violent crime, such as stealing a tin of paint or forging a cheque, and earn the offender 25 years to life in jail.

Ten years after the law was passed, Smith's aunt, Dorothy Erskine, is part of a vociferous campaign for a drastic reworking of the law that could see her nephew's case reviewed along with thousands of others serving long sentences for minor crimes, a group now known as the "buried alive".

Voters will be asked to decide. When Californians vote for in the presidential election with the rest of America on Nov 2, they will also vote on Proposition 66 which would curtail the three-strikes law by limiting offences that trigger it to serious or violent crimes. Polls indicate that voters will back the motion and thus perform a dramatic U-turn on the landmark initiative they embraced so wholeheartedly a decade ago when 72 per cent backed the measure.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes Proposition 66 as does the state attorney-general, Bill Lockyer, and the California District Attorneys' Association. While the "Yes on 66" brigade blames three strikes for clogging the state's jails with petty offenders and wasting millions on keeping them there, the No lobby says any tinkering will invite a host of predatory criminals back on to streets the law has made safer.

[LostInAnomie]

1. It's a stupid idea in the first place...

... only we Americans could think that basing our criminal justice system on a sports analogy is a good idea.

[Cronus Protagonist]

10. Maybe someone should introduce "time outs"

And two minute warnings. It makes just as much sense.

Fascism: We Report You Decide
http://cronus.com/fascism

You might be a Republican if...
http://cronus.com/quiz

Commentary by a Republican...
http://cronus.com/republican

The REAL Republican Platform...
http://cronus.com/platform

Bush's Illustrated Resume
http://cronus.com/bushresume

Isn't That Strange?
http://cronus.com/oil

:)

[AlCzervik]

14. the author of the california 3 stikes law is running

against Boxer for the senate. He's behind 18pts in the polls and i think that besides the fact the Bill Jones is a roaring asshole people are starting to hold him in contempt for this law that has ruined lives and cost so much money.

[Amigust]

24. Any thinking person could see it at the time

Like a lot of bad law, it was passed by emotion.

[Spinzonner]

2. How about a one-strike law

for Corporate Fraud and Conspiracy

[Hekate]

3. It's about damn time to change it

I can't even remember if I voted for or against the Three Strikes law, and that really troubles me. I remember the pro and con arguments, and I certainly remember the horrific crimes that sparked the drive in the first place, and I remember being conflicted over whether it would do any good.

But I don't remember anyone on either side pointing out its most glaring flaw: imprisoning nonviolent felons for life without giving judges the leeway to -- well, be judicious. I do remember the sick feeling I got at the first news story about a pizza-thief being put away.

I'm getting pretty tired of my fellow Californians' penchant for direct democracy via these propositions. Term limits was another recent bad idea -- now we have a state legislature that churns through and never has a chance to gain a much-needed level of expertise; ironically, this makes them more dependent on lobbyists, not less, because those snake oil salesmen really seem to know their stuff.

Hekate

[TaleWgnDg]

4. tell em to toss in a retro-active clause in that law too so that the

poor bastard who stole two audio tapes at the local Ma and Pa Video Store can now get off instead of serving a life term.

edited to add: as well as the other poor bastard who stole golf clubs at the local community golf course/store.

edited again to add the U.S.Sup.Ct. url: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=%22three%20strikes%22&url=/supct/html/01-6978.ZO.html (Ewing v. CA)

[theoceansnerves]

6. it will be retroactive

it will require resentencing of anyone whose "third strike" was non-violent.

[theoceansnerves]

5. it's just another way

to pack the privately run prison systems with non-violent drug offenders. from what i've been reading it looks like it will thankfully pass.

[Piperay]

7. It's stupid, there is nothing special about

the number '3'. If it is that bad you should be put away after number one not waiting until 3.

[MatrixEscape]

8. It does not fit with our Constitution

How does this idea fit with our own Constitution?

"Three strikes" is an arbitrary presumption. Our Constitution does not function based on presumptions, at all. In fact, assumptions are in total contrast to our legal system.

The strikes issue evolved from "tough on crime" agendas. Crime is no longer the major factor now. Freedom has taken its place. Those who value and fight for freedom are not, and never have been, criminals, in a Constitutional sense.

We now, thankfully, finally face that issues squarely, and without reservation or facade. We can no longer allow drugs and supposed, overlays of crime issues stand as replacements for the real issues they represent in today's society. The charade is now over. What a relief.

Now, if you rally for the changing one's OWN consciousness as a thought crime, with long imprisonment as a reward, we know where you stand in relation to us all! You stand for government control of the human mind and consciousness, et al. You concretely and obviously will NOT have our freedom and choice as an option in any way. We will be imprisoned for such actions on your behalf. That is, even though mankind has been using the natural drugs you outlaw, (and God provided them) for untold centuries. We do know that your pharmaceutical companies cannot profit from them in this case.

How dare we have control over our reproductive organs! How dare we have natural control over the natural substances we ingest into our own bodies. Should we not be considered criminals for going against your imposed laws and edicts as we go against nature?

Obviously, the war against some drugs is, in retrospect, a war against exploration into "some states of mind!" The American Indians would hav been just as curious and alarmed about this overwhelming and biased response as you are now to the Neocon revolution. Go figure!

The old rule is that you should never change another person's consciousness without their consent or approval. It is just bad Karma to do so. Today, they are telling you that YOU are not allowed to change your consciousness without Government approval or you will be sent to jail for a very long period of time.

Is that at all realistic or fair. Does a drug make you a terrorist? Well, yes. in today's version of law, the sentences make you just as bad in the end. You are a thought criminal!

Were you really a bad criminal, deserving 25 years without parole, for that last toke or snort? Only your Government knows for sure, so they say!?!?

FREE YOUR MIND! Then .. FREE THE MINDS OF THE REST OF HUMANINTY!

[Zhade]

27. Great post. Welcome to DU.

NT!

[Sven77]

9. bushes invest in prisons

some say the bushies are mostly invested in weapons contractors, others say oil companies, I think they are mostly invested in prison systems.

[wildeyed]

11. Three strike and you're out is a rule for BASEBALL

not public policy.

If they can figure this out, maybe they can soon figure out that they are getting screwed by the alleged 'Death Tax'. Swear to god, give a policy a snappy name, and people will vote for it, no matter how stupid.

[LeinesRed]

12. I always believed that those dangerous car chases

were an unintended consequence of that law. Nothing to lose...third strike.

[belle]

13. Oh GOD I hope so.

Ah-nold opposes it? Hm, maybe he's not all bad.

[Zorra]

15. Enron Arnie wants to keep the 3 strikes law - he opposes Proposition 66,

which would change the 3 strikes law.

Yes, the gropernator really is all bad.

[Evergreen Emerald]

16. WA has two strikes

Wa has two strikes for certain for sex offenders. The second strike must occur after all confinement and probation is over.

I disagree with most on this string. The crimes like "stealing pizza" of which you speak is not a felony sufficient for a third strike. So, it was either a robbery which includes violence or a weapon, or a burglary in which there was a break-in. I do not disagree with the three-strikes laws for violent offenses. Nor do I disagree with the two-strikes law for sex offenders.

[Trashman]

17. I think the pizza thief

beat up a couple of guys before stealing the pizza from them. Sounds violent to me. I could be wrong.

After a good friend of mine and his girlfriend at a 4th of July festival, were beat beat up so bad they needed to go to the emergency room. By thieves wanting his wallet and her jewelry, I tend to think harder punishments for violent criminals is just. I don't think too highly of adults selling drugs to kids either. But this may not fall into this thread.

[Massacure]

18. I remember seeing a news piece on this law.

Some convicted felon got out of jail and had no where to go so he stole a piece of pizza from one home and a hat + gloves from another home. He got sent to prison for life for that. No one deserves to be sent to jail for life for stealing $10 worth of items.

[leesa]

19. Good. It was an idiotic, foolish law.

[SemperEadem]

20. well, due to the 3 strikes law

they are already turning out serious offenders because there is no room to house them due to the overcrowding that 3 strikes has caused.

how interesting that they espouse a tough on crime stance, but would rather cut off their nuts before raising taxes to fund their stance... like it's going to take care of itself if they don't do anything about it.

[Nevernose]

28. You're just now catching on to that?

:evilgrin:

[Yuffi]

21. If it is repealed

would those who were sentenced 25 to life be able to have the sentence reduced?

[TexasSissy]

22. I think a non-violent act can trigger the 3rd strike here in Texas.

As long as it's a felony, is all that's required (I think).

[Bariztr]

23. This has to change

Proposition 66 will hopefully follow the path of Proposition 36, which mandated drug treatment over incarceration.
California voters are an incredibly schizophrenic lot, they vote for the Gropinator and Prop 187, yet also pass resolutions for drug treatment, medical marijuana and hopefully for this long overdue reworking of the Three Strikes Law.
As a criminal defense attorney in California I can only tell you from personal experience that the law as currently written destroys more lives and families than it purports to save. This is a function of several factors, from the charging practices of the district attorneys, the strength of the prison lobby, to the cowardice of those in the judiciary. Passing this will diminish the power of both the district attorneys and the prison union and its a long time in coming.
Much like the current presidential race they are engaging in a fear tactic campaign by making it seems the streets will have rampaging hosts of criminals running wild down the street.
I have several clients who will greatly benefit from this change and when it passes you can bet I will be one of the first ones in line to have my cases heard.

[newyawker99]

25. Hi Bariztr!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[Zhade]

26. 3X is a HORRIFIC law. Just a way to imprison nonviolent drug "offenders".

But then, I think most drugs should be legalized and regulated, for safety, economic, and societal reasons.

3X was just a way to get more people of color into prison. Sadly, it's benefited the prison-industrial complex immensely, at the cost of many destroyed lives.

I will relish voting to amend this monstrous law.