Voter Guide: Proposition 36 - Modification of the "Three Strikes" Law

[Barry]

From the Pacific Sun:

YES - This is what happens when folks start passing laws inspired by easy-to-remember rules from the wide world of sports. California's infamous Three Strikes Law was the tough-on-crime Prop. 184 passed in 1994 that rendered any third conviction for a "violent" criminal an automatic life sentence. Why on the third conviction? We guess "three strikes and you're out" is a better catchphrase than "four downs and you're turned over" a la football. (Where's the Mulligan Law for parolees? What about a Slam Dunk rule for slammed drunks?) Problem is, small-time criminals who may have done time for, say, armed robbery and battery years before, were now receiving life sentences for selling a bag of pot to their friends. Not only is that a preposterously inconsistent way to administer "justice," but it's an incredible burden on an already stretched penitentiary system. Critics rightly pointed out that if they were so dangerous following the "violent crime" convictions, why were they let out? They didn't suddenly become more dangerous for lighting up a bit of the "loco" (probably became less dangerous, in fact).

Prop. 36 would revise the Three Strikes law to impose a life sentence only when the third felony is "serious or violent." It would also authorize re-sentencing for current Three Strikes lifers whose third conviction was not serious or violent.

We're still not sold on the concept that maximum or minimum numbers should have such a hold over criminal sentencing, nor that such serious consequences should be inspired by rules in children's games, but Prop. 36 is a needed revision that will help, er, even the score a bit.


CA Democratic Party: Yes

CA Green Party: Yes - The Green Party has always opposed California's Three Strikes law.

What do you think?