VOTERS GET 2ND CHANCE AT 'THREE-STRIKES' LAW

Ten years after they overwhelmingly passed the toughest-in-the-nation
sentencing law for repeat offenders, California voters will be asked
Nov. 2 if they'd like to change their minds.

At stake would be the 25-to-life sentences handed down to more than
4,000 inmates for relatively minor felony convictions under the 1994
"three-strikes-and-you're-out" law.

If Proposition 66 passes, those inmates would qualify for resentencing
hearings - and probable freedom. Backers of the initiative say the
change is long overdue to correct a sentencing structure that is
seriously out of whack.

"It's just plain ridiculous, too costly and unjust to lock people up
25 years to life for writing bad checks, making false applications on
real estate loans, or stealing golf clubs, shoplifting, or just using
drugs," said Joe Klaas, grandfather of Polly Klaas, the Petaluma girl
whose 1993 murder widely was seen as catalyzing the "three-strikes"
law.

Proposition 66 opponents, however, say the real story behind the
inmates with weaker third felonies is their collective history of
serious and violent crimes - documented by rap sheets that include at
least two prior convictions on heavy charges.

"The short answer against Proposition 66 is that dangerous and violent
people will be released from prison who shouldn't be," state Attorney
General Bill Lockyer said. "I share the view that as a general matter,
putting somebody in prison for life for stealing videotapes sounds
like a really bad idea. But there also might have been a very long
string of crimes that preceded that conviction, and that pattern
justifies a long sentence."

Klaas, who long has championed reform of the sentencing measure, is
fronting a movement that includes strong support from the state's
public defenders and the American Civil Liberties Union, as well as
religious, labor and civil-rights groups.

Their campaign is being financed mostly by a Sacramento car-insurance
executive, Jerry Keenan, whose son figures to get out of prison early
if the initiative passes. As of late September, the Proposition 66
campaign had raised $1.9 million. Keenan had contributed $1.4 million
of that amount, according to the secretary of state's office.

Billionaire financier George Soros contributed $150,000, and his two
partners in a national campaign to reduce drug-sentencing laws and
other criminal penalties, University of Phoenix founder John Sperling
and insurance executive Peter Lewis, also gave $150,000 each.

All 58 county district attorneys in the state oppose Proposition 66,
and their advocacy group, the California District Attorneys
Association, is leading the fight. Big-name backers of the No on 66
effort include Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lockyer and Oakland Mayor
Jerry Brown. Taxpayer associations, law-enforcement organizations and
victims' rights groups also oppose Proposition 66.As of the Sept. 30
filing deadline, the opposition had raised $186,455. Most of that -
$149,000 - came from the California Correctional Peace Officers
Association.

"We believe Proposition 66 is a lie," said CCPOA Vice President Lance
Corcoran. "It's going to put violent criminals back on the street
immediately."

Yes on 66 campaign manager Steve Hopcraft said the union's
contributions reflect the CCPOA's "narrow self-interest."

"It's jobs and overtime," Hopcraft said.

Launched in the early 1990s in response to increased violent crime,
"three-strikes" laws took root in more than 20 states where voters and
legislatures sought to fashion sentencing mechanisms that would lock
down career criminals for good. California's twist on "three-strikes"
allowed the big sentences to kick in on any third felony conviction,
even petty theft with a prior offense.

Following the slaying of Polly Klaas by a career criminal, the
Legislature passed the tough "three-strikes" law in March 1994, and 72
percent of the voters approved it that November.

Since the law went into effect, 7,458 inmates had been imprisoned on
25-to-life, "three-strikes" terms as of June 30 this year. According
to the Department of Corrections, 3,192 of the three-strikers picked
up the life sentence for violent, sex and other crimes against people.
An additional 2,323 were for property crimes, 1,283 were for drugs and
660 were for other offenses.

About 4,100 of those inmates would qualify for resentencing under
Proposition 66, and all future "third-strike" convictions could result
only from serious or violent offenses.

Burglary no longer would qualify as a prior "strike" under the law,
unless the home was occupied at the time of the break-in. Five other
crimes also would be stricken as strikes - attempted burglary,
conspiracy to commit assault, nonresidential arson resulting in no
serious injuries, criminal threats and interfering with a witness.
Gang activity and crimes that unintentionally result in injuries would
be eliminated as strike enhancers. The law also would require separate
trials for each strike count.

At the same time it seeks to release some "three-strikes" felons,
Proposition 66 also proposes to double prison terms on first-time
child molesters and give prosecutors the authority to seek life terms
on sex offenders whose victims are under the age of 10.

The two sides have sparred over whether the initiative would apply to
the 43,000 prisoners serving "two-strike" sentences that doubled their
terms. Opponents say it is written in a way that will allow defense
lawyers to petition for their clients' freedom. Proponents disagree,
and they cite a legislative counsel opinion that concludes the
"two-strikers" will be excluded.

The Legislative Analyst's Office predicts Proposition 66 would save
the state "several tens of millions" of dollars a year at first. A
decade from now, the savings will reach "several hundreds of
millions," according to the LAO. But the legislative analysts also say
parole costs will be boosted and at least half of the released
offenders can be expected to commit crimes and wind up back behind
bars. Local jails and courts can expect to spend up to $10 million a
year to handle the resentencings and court cases, according to the
LAO.

McGeorge Law School professor Michael Vitiello, an opponent of the
"three-strikes" law, said there is no substantial evidence it has
worked to deter crime. California crime went down 40 percent between
1994 and 2002, but initiative backers such as Vitiello say crime
decreased everywhere during that period, and even more so in some
states that don't have "three-strikes" laws. They say the money spent
on "three-strikes" incarceration could be spent better elsewhere.

"Systemwide, we're making really bad choices about our allocation of
resources," Vitiello said. "We could be using the money to develop a
more intensive, better parole system, alternatives to incarceration,
or we could use more resources to incarcerate younger, more dangerous
felons. We should be figuring out how to get the best bang for our
sentencing buck."

Jennifer E. Walsh, a criminal-justice professor at California State
University, Los Angeles, and a supporter of the "three-strikes" law,
said prosecutors have begun to use the law in a more discriminating
way.

Judges, since being empowered by the state Supreme Court to review
prosecutors' filing decisions, have helped weed out 25 to 45 percent
of potential "three-strike" cases and cut down costs, according to
Walsh's surveys.

"When they're using discretion," Walsh said, "they are using it on
lesser offenders who don't have a violent record, who don't have a
history of violence or weapons use, or maybe they're getting older."

[sidebar]

PROPOSITION 66 AT A GLANCE

What it would do: Redefine the serious or violent felonies requiring
increased sentences under the "three-strikes" law and increase
punishment for sex crimes against children.

Supporters: Joe Klaas of Citizens Against Violent Crime, California
Labor Federation, American Civil Liberties Union.

Opponents: California District Attorneys Association, Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger, state Attorney General Bill Lockyer.