MAKE THIRD STRIKES MATTER

Its supporters say that California's three-strikes-and-you're-out law has
caused crime to drop and put the state's worst criminals behind bars for
good. However, a growing number of Californians also worry that filling
state prison cells with petty thieves and small-time drug addicts serving
life sentences is unduly harsh and eats up taxpayer funds.

Since three strikes became law in 1994, at least half a dozen bills have
been introduced to amend the statute to eliminate mandatory life sentences
for every two-bit criminal who commits a third-strike crime, even if the
previous crimes were committed 20 years before, even if the third strike
involves possessing marijuana or passing a bad check. Each measure has
died. Last week, a group of lawmakers unveiled a new proposal. This time,
legislators should vote "yes." At least 35 states and the federal
government impose stiffer sentences on repeat criminals. Most reserve the
harshest punishment, life in prison, for those who've committed a serious
or violent crime like rape or assault. California's law does not.
Conviction for any third felony brings a life sentence. Even misdemeanors
like stealing a couple of videotapes or a slice of pizza can be filed as
felonies if the defendant has a record. More than 7,000 California inmates
are now serving life terms for third-strike offenses. Of those, more than
2,600 were convicted of crimes considered not serious or not violent.

Many prosecutors defend the harsh punishments by arguing that these felons
are far from being upstanding citizens and that many of them probably got
away with other crimes. But American judges and juries are charged with
deliberating only on the crimes before them. It is also true, especially in
Los Angeles and other major cities, that judges and prosecutors are using
their discretion to avoid pizza-theft third strikes. Outside the cities it
is often a different story, however, making for more disparities and
inequities.

The proposed measure, by Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg (D-Los Angeles),
would limit the stiffest penalties to criminals whose third-strike offense
was a serious or violent crime, as is the law in several other states. At
the same time, a group called Citizens Against Violent Crime announced they
will begin gathering signatures to qualify for the November ballot an
initiative similar to Goldberg's AB 1790.

Recent polls indicate that a majority of Californians not only approve of
these proposed changes but thought the 1994 law already distinguished
between serious or violent crimes and petty offenses. This measure is not
about being soft on crime. It's about being smart.