NO MERCY - GOV. DAVIS IS A PRISONER OF THE TOUGH-ON-CRIME MENTALITY

WHILE crime declines in California, Gov. Gray Davis acts as if
anything short of ``throw away the key'' is as soft-headed as handing
criminals gift certificates to self-esteem seminars.

A vigorous proponent of the death penalty, Davis reportedly is making
support for executions an absolute standard for the judges he
appoints. He has refused to parole even one inmate from state prison.
He has vetoed a bill requiring a study of the state's ``three
strikes'' law.

Davis said during his campaign for governor that on matters of crime
he admires Singapore. We thought he was exaggerating.

Davis has been slower than any recent governor to appoint judges to
vacant seats. Until he filled three appeals court vacancies last week,
he had made no appointments in his nine months in office.

The plodding pace is consistent with Davis' overall lack of urgency in
filling executive branch jobs and seats on commissions. More worrisome
are the reports that he is fixated on judicial candidates' level of
enthusiasm for the death penalty.

Any governor will appoint judges generally in line with his
philosophy. But rigid ideological tests tend to homogenize the court
philosophically and ethnically. The result can be intellectual
stagnation and public disenchantment with a judiciary that doesn't
resemble the population it judges.

When Davis himself acts as a judge, in reviewing parole decisions of
the State Board of Prison Terms, he's merciless.

Most inmates in prison are serving fixed terms. About 20,000, however,
are serving life with the possibility of parole. The Board of Prison
Terms considers requests for release from prison.

It doesn't grant many. Of more than 1,400 cases considered since Davis
became governor, the Los Angeles Times reported recently, it forwarded
13 to him for approval. He rejected eight outright and sent the other
five back for reconsideration. The board then rejected those five appeals.

A few inmates the board has refused were supported in their appeal by
the prosecuting attorney and the victim (not all the parole applicants
are murderers).

This approach means that no inmates -- not the few who killed nobody,
not those who have clean records in prison, not those who have earned
college degrees -- deserve less than the maximum possible sentence of
life. This is mindlessly punitive.

Equally thoughtless is Davis' rejection of any analysis of the state's
``three strikes'' law, imposing a sentence of 25 years to life for a
third felony conviction.

Since its passage, crime has gone down sharply and the prison
population, eating and sleeping a public expense, has gone up
dramatically.

The Legislature passed a bill mandating a study of the benefits and
expenses of ``three strikes.'' For example, could the same reduction
in crime be achieved at less expense by exempting non-violent felonies
from being counted as third strikes?

If ``three strikes'' is the glittering success its proponents claim it
is, they should be eager to demonstrate the value of its
tough-on-crime approach. Davis wasn't interested.

``Don't ask, just punish'' seems to be his approach to crime. It's
simplistic.

Cracking down on crime certainly has social benefits. Vigorous
enforcement against minor offenses, for instance, is often credited
with restoring a sense of safety in cities and with preventing worse
crimes. Serious crimes ought to be punished severely.

But fighting crime, like fighting poverty and fighting illness, should
be done in a way that produces the most progress for the price paid.
And mercy has always played a role, along with punishment, in the
search for justice.