SECOND CHANCE TO REFORM '3 STRIKES'

THE DEFEAT of Proposition 66 at the ballot box last week does not lessen
the urgency of the need to reform California's "three strikes" law.

Thousands of inmates are serving 25-year-to-life sentences in California's
jails for nonviolent crimes. Their continued incarceration runs counter to
the intent of the law, which was to lock up murderers, rapists and other
violent criminals.

No criminal should go unpunished. But we continue to believe that in a
civilized society a life sentence should only be imposed only for the most
serious crimes.

One of the main reasons the initiative was defeated -- by a relatively
small margin -- was because of a series of misleading and inflammatory
television ads starring Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that blanketed the state
in the closing days of the campaign.

In one ad, Schwarzenegger strolled past a rogue's gallery of some of the
state's most notorious criminals. "Murderers, rapists and child molesters
- -- 26,000 dangerous criminals will be released under Prop. 66," he intoned.
"Keep them off the streets and out of your neighborhood." Earlier a judge
had declared that a similar claim -- made in the original ballot argument
signed by Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Bill Lockyer against Prop. 66
- -- was "patently false."

Facts counted for little in the campaign. Of the 42,930 inmates now serving
second- and third-strike sentences, 703 were convicted for second-degree
murder and manslaughter, 372 for rape and 991 for committing "lewd acts
with a child." (For the latest statistics on California's three-strike
population, go to www.corr.ca.gov). None would have been released as a
result of Prop. 66.

But the election results did show that for the first time in a decade, a
majority of voters favor essential reform of the "three strikes" law --
just not the more extensive reforms proposed by Prop. 66. This fall several
Bay Area district attorneys told us that even though they opposed Prop. 66,
they were willing to work on finding a more "rational" way to reform the law.

Now it is time for them to put their words into action.

Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff has applied the "three strikes"
law more judiciously than many others throughout the state. He opposed
Prop. 66, but also said he would want to look at whether crimes such as
petty theft with a prior conviction, simple drug possession, forgery,
nonviolent robbery or possession of stolen property should count as
"strikes." After Prop. 66's defeat this week, he told us he and his fellow
district attorneys will "definitely be talking" about developing an
approach to reforming the law before the Legislature is sworn in next year.
"We need to get district attorneys from both parties to sit down and get a
consensus," he said.

San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who also opposed Prop. 66,
says she is planning to meet with Los Angeles District Attorney Steve
Cooley in December to discuss a strategy for "three strikes" reform. "There
are abuses, there are excesses (in implementation of the law)," she told
us. "There is a will for it to be reformed. It is just a matter of to what
extent. " Harris believes that the district attorneys from the state's two
largest cities -- one a Democrat and the other a Republican -- could
provide a significant impetus for necessary changes.

Despite almost single-handedly defeating Prop. 66, Gov. Schwarzenegger said
he planned to talk with state Attorney General Bill Lockyer about
"improvements" to the law. "'If there's something wrong with it that you
know needs to be adjusted, then we should do that," he said.

Until now, the Legislature has balked at reforming the "three strikes" law.
We urge Schwarzenegger and influential district attorneys to get together
with lawmakers and commit to reforming the law in Sacramento, rather than
relying on the unwieldy and expensive initiative process.

California does not have the luxury to spend $31,000 a year -- in current
dollars -- to incarcerate nonviolent inmates for decades at a time. These
are sentences California taxpayers cannot afford to impose, either morally
or financially. As the "three strikes" population ages, Barry Krisberg,
president of the Oakland-based National Council on Crime and Delinquency,
points out, "it is only going to get more expensive."