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.