3-STRIKES REFORM FACES TOUGH FOES

The state assembly has begun to take steps toward modifying
California's uniquely onerous three-strikes law with the passage of AB
2447 by the Assembly Public Safety Committee last week.If the issue
could be divorced from partisan politics and political campaigns-which
unfortunately is not very likely-reform would probably be a cinch.But
it is a political issue and at least in public certain positions have
become set in stone.

When the voters approved the three-strikes law in 1994 they thought
they were enhancing penalties for violent crimes. But California's law
turns out to be more stringent than the national law or than any other
stat's law. It includes not just violent crimes but any felony. Most
states stipulate that the three strikes occur within a time frame of
five to 10 years, the idea being to get genuine career criminals. In
California there is no time limit; a juvenile offense can be counted
as a strike 20 years later.

Consequently, as the Legislative Analyst's Office recently reported,
of the 43,800 people now in prison on second strikes and 5,700 in for
25 years to life on third strikes, few are in for violent crimes. Only
40 percent of third-strikers are in for a violent crime. Of
second-strikers, less than 20 percent are in for a violent crime - 36
percent are in for property crimes and 33 percent for drug offenses
(20 percent for simple possession).

Most authorities estimate that it costs taxpayers $25,000 to $30,00 a
year to keep somebody in prison, and those figures are probably
conservative. If there were clear-cut evidence that the three-strikes
law had reduced crime, it might be viewed as worth it to spend all
that money.

But crime rates in California began to decline before the law was
enacted, and they haven't declined more rapidly since. Crime rate have
declined in states with and without three-strikes laws at about the
same rates. In San Francisco, where prosecutors hardly ever invoke the
law, crime has actually declined a bit faster than in Los Angeles
County, where prosecutors use it as often as possible.

The passage of the "strikes" law was facilitated by the enormous
public outrage at the murder of young Polly Klass in Northern
California. But at last week's hearing, Polly's grandfather, Joe
Klass, argued eloquently that he didn't want this law to be Polly's
legacy. "To take someone who has committed a nonviolent crime and send
them to prison for 25 years to life is unconscionable," he said.

The hearing room and halls were filled with opponents of the law and
AB 2447, written by Los Angeles Democrat Rod Wright, which would make
only violent crimes " strikable" offenses, passed the committee 5-3.

Unfortunately, politics still reigns over common sense on this issue.
None of the Republicans on the committee voted for reform and most
observers expect Gov. Davis, who seems to live in constant fear of
being accused of being "soft on crime," to veto a reform bill if it
passes.

Many politicians who understand the shortcomings of the current law
are afraid a vote to make it more sensible will be used against them
in the next election campaign.

With the economy booming and unemployment low, it is difficult to get
most Californians exercised about any political issue. The
prison-reform organization UNION (United for No Injustice, Oppression
or Neglect) has begun a light-hearted "Raise a Stink" campaign, urging
people to send Gov. Davis a box with a note about three strikes inside
a bottle and a few onions. No word yet on how it's going.

Reforming California's unnecessarily expensive and ineffective
three-strikes law would be a simple common-sense move rather than a
partisan struggle. Until it becomes that - until citizens of both
parties let legislators know they're ready - progress is likely to be
achingly slow.