"THREE STRIKES" INEFFECTIVE AS CRIME DETERRENT, STUDY SAYS

LAWS: Supporters Of The Get-Tough Measure Question Those Findings.

SACRAMENTO- A new study of criminal sentences in three large California
cities concludes that the state's 5 1/2 year-old "three strikes, your out"
hasn't had any statistically significant effect on the conduct of criminals.

Franklin Zimring, a University of California, Berkeley, law professor, said
Monday that his analysis of arrest records of 3,500 criminal defendants in
Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco before and after California
enacted the law in 1994 found no evidence it is a deterrent to crime.

His report was immediately challenged by a spokesman for an author of
California's three strikes law, Secretary of State Bill Jones, a former
state assemblyman.

"When you see the crime rate going down 38 percent since three strikes, you
can't say it doesn't work," said Jones spokesman Alfie Charles. "The entire
crime rate drop isn't attributable to three strikes, but it is a major factor."

The three strikes Law - doubling sentences for a second felony conviction
and imposing 25 years to life for a third conviction - was enacted in March
1994.

But the crime rate had been declining for 21/2 years before that date, and
it continued downward after three strikes at roughly the same rate, Zimring
said.

But more importantly, the percentage of felony defendants facing
three-strikes sentence, the real measure of its value as a deterrent, only
declined from 13.9 percent during the 2/12 years before three strikes to
12.8 percent in the same time period after.

"The statistical effect of three strikes is negligible," Zimring told a
news conference Monday. "The three-strikes defendants are indistinguishable
from the general run of felonies.

"If California's crime decline were a three-strikes effect, we would expect
to see the drop in arrests concentrated among the target groups. Instead,
the decline is spread evenly" among both three-strikes and first- and
second-time offenders, he said.

But Charles said the study ignored other relevant data.

"We have more parolees leaving California than coming to California. If you
talk with parolees or inmates, they know what it is, and they know how many
strikes they have. It is working," Charles said.

But Zimring said there was "no way to turn this data into a conclusive
argument for or against the impact of three strikes."

He said his statistical analysis also strongly suggests that prosecutors
are seeking the second-strike enhancement of double the normal penalty, but
they are not seeking third-strike penalties in the overwhelming majority of
cases where it might be applicable.

He said parole revocations of ex-convicts have also risen substantially, an
indication that prosecutors are using that option.