Pubdate: Thu, 07 Oct 2004
Source: Fresno Bee, The (CA)
Copyright: 2004 The Fresno Bee
Contact:  http://www.fresnobee.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/161
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/opinion.htm (Opinion)
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/props.htm (Ballot Initiatives)

NO ON PROP. 66

We have long supported changes in the "Three Strikes and You're Out" law to 
make it fairer and not clog our prisons with nonviolent offenders. But 
Proposition 66 does not meet that goal. Instead, it weakens the law in ways 
that put the public's safety at risk.

The Three Strikes law targets habitual offenders, requiring a 
25-years-to-life sentence for anyone convicted of a third felony. The law 
also doubles sentences for two-strikers.

The Legislature originally passed the law. Three Strikes supporters went to 
the initiative ballot to prevent legislators from making changes without a 
two-thirds majority, and voters overwhelmingly supported it. The 
Legislature can still fix problems in the law, but most of our 
representatives are too timid to take on that political fight.

Now we're back at the ballot box 10 years after the Three Strikes law was 
passed. Unfortunately, Proposition 66 doesn't fix flaws, but substantially 
-- and unwisely -- weakens the law. The Bee recommends that voters reject 
the measure on the Nov. 2 ballot.

Let there be no doubt: California needs to modify its Three Strikes law, 
which is the harshest in the nation. It puts away too many nonviolent 
offenders for 25 years to life, crowding prisons at a cost of more than 
$775,000 per inmate.

Proposition 66 would limit felonies that trigger second and third strikes 
to violent crimes, such as rape, murder, kidnapping, assault and robbery. 
It would eliminate crimes from the Three Strikes list such as burglary of 
an unoccupied home, car theft, forgery, drug possession, driving under the 
influence and others. This list of "non-strikes" is too broad.

For example, we believe that a habitual criminal who is convicted of 
burglarizing an unoccupied home should be sentenced under the Three Strikes 
law. Home burglary is a serious felony, and we reject Proposition 66's 
contention that somehow career criminals should be given a pass on that crime.

There's another major problem with Proposition 66. It would require that 
all "strikes" be tried separately. Multiple violent offenses, even a serial 
murder, would only count as one strike unless prosecutors decided to have 
individual trials.

If a rapist committed three rapes in a week, under Proposition 66 
prosecutors would have to decide whether to try the three crimes as one 
case and go for concurrent sentences of eight years for each crime (a total 
sentence of 24 years) or try each crime separately as a strike and go for a 
Three Strikes sentence of 25-years-to-life. That would raise prosecution 
costs, and would be unfair to the victims and the public.

Fresno County District Attorney Elizabeth Egan said that because the 
initiative applies retroactively, 58% of all third strikers and 63% of all 
second strikers would be returned to local communities for resentencing and 
release. She predicts that would cost taxpayers millions of dollars in new 
legal and law-enforcement costs.

Egan estimates that in Fresno County more than 500 three-strikers and 
second-strikers with serious or violent convictions would be returning for 
resentencing and probable release. These are not model citizens and that 
will have an impact on public safety.

We support a reform of the Three Strikes law, but Proposition 66 is not the 
right fix. Vote "no" on Proposition 66.