Should we keep three-strikes law?

This November, voters will choose whether to retain
California’s three-strikes law. Reasonable minds may differ
about whether three strikes should be amended, but one thing is
clear ““ Proposition 66 is a public-safety nightmare that
would gut the law and free thousands of prisoners.

It is opposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Attorney General
Bill Lockyer, all 58 district attorneys and every state
taxpayers’ association.

There is an interesting parallel between the history of the
three-strikes law and the current effort to destroy it. In 1992,
18-year-old Kimber Reynolds was brutally murdered during an armed
robbery committed by two career criminals. Kimber’s father
vowed to prevent similar tragedies from happening to other
families. He convened an informal group of judges, attorneys and
law enforcement experts to discuss changing criminal sentencing.
The group ultimately drafted the three-strikes law.

Since enacting three strikes, California’s crime rate has
plummeted by twice the national average, according to the FBI.
Simultaneously, the state Department of Corrections has reported
that our per capita prison population has declined.

Three strikes targets the few criminals committing the vast
majority of crimes. Less than 5 percent of California’s
prison population is composed of third-strike offenders. In fact,
the number of third-strikers annually committed to prison has
declined consistently since 1996, to only 401 last year, according
to the California Department of Corrections Data Analysis Unit.

Why? Because the law is working. Some predicted it would
bankrupt the state, but it has saved billions of dollars by
preventing crime by repeat offenders. More important, countless
families have been spared from devastating violence. Proposition
66’s supporters say the current law is too harsh, but the law
is not mandatory.

Each case is thoroughly reviewed before sentencing, first by
prosecutors and then by judges. Judges have discretion to impose
lesser sentences if the facts and the defendants’ criminal
histories justify it. A judge who abuses this discretion will be
reversed on appeal ““ assuring repeat offenders are sentenced
justly, while removing dangerous offenders from the community.

Proposition 66’s supporters claim that too many felons are
in prison for minor crimes, but petty crimes do not trigger the
three-strikes law. A defendant must have at least two serious or
violent felony convictions before a judge may consider imposing a
25-to-life term. All defendants sentenced accordingly have resumed
their criminal careers and shown a willingness to victimize others
repeatedly.

This proposition’s proponents also downplay the fact that
it is retroactive. According to an analysis of state Department of
Corrections data by experts commissioned by the California District
Attorneys Association, the measure would release approximately
26,000 dangerous offenders, whose crimes would no longer trigger
the three-strikes law.

Among these inmates is Kenneth Parnell, the infamous pedophile
who kept Steven Stayner captive for seven years. Another is Steven
Mathews, previously convicted of murder and raping his own
mother.

Proposition 66 would also change the definition of
“serious crime.” Some of the felonies that would no
longer be considered strikes include burglarizing a house (unless
someone was home), killing someone while driving under the
influence, burning down a business to collect insurance money,
setting a forest fire, threatening to kill a stalking victim, and
committing gang-related felonies such as possessing assault weapons
to benefit the gang.

Who supports Proposition 66? Here’s the ironic parallel
between Reynolds’ work to enact three strikes and the
proponents’ attempt to destroy it. Jerry Keenan has spent
more than $1.5 million supporting the initiative. His son Richard
killed two people while driving recklessly, on a suspended license,
while under the influence of marijuana and alcohol. He received an
eight-year prison term.

Under existing law, felons who commit violent offenses must
serve 80 to 85 percent of their time before being eligible for
parole. Under Proposition 66, Richard Keenan’s crimes would
no longer be considered violent. Thus, he would get out more than
two years early.

What Reynolds accomplished for the good of California, Keenan
seeks to unravel. Don’t let it happen. Citizens who are
opposed to recidivism should oppose Proposition 66.

Gurwitz is the deputy campaign manager for the No on
Proposition 66 Campaign.