REFORMING "THREE STRIKES" LAW

Re: "Friends of crime" (Editorial, Sept. 26):

That's right: Liberals love criminals. In fact, according to the liberal
handbook, a liberal must have a criminal over for dinner at least once a
month. And when the crime rate spikes, it's party time. Your editorial
nailed it.

Let's get serious. Liberals and conservatives alike want safe communities.
Any suggestions that those working to reform California's "three strikes,
you're out" law are friends of crime is rhetoric designed to skirt the real
issue: Nonviolent men and women are unjustly being locked up for life
behind this law. About 50 percent of more than 5,000 inmates sentenced
under "three strikes" law are in prison for nonserious, nonviolent crimes.

Take the story of Sue Reams of Orange County and her son, Shane. When Shane
used drugs as a teen-ager he broke into neighbors' houses when no one was
home to support his habit. Sue thought a little tough love was in order.
She persuaded her reluctant neighbors to press charges. Shane did time for
his burglary convictions but couldn't kick his drug habit. Later, Shane was
convicted for acting as a lookout while a friend sold a small amount of
dope to an undercover police officer. Strike three. Sue, who voted for
"three strikes" law, unknowingly helped prosecutors rack up the strikes
necessary to put her son away for 25 years. She now fights to reform "three
strikes" law.

Shane and many others doing time on "three strikes" convictions are
nonviolent petty criminals. Yet, despite the discretion afforded
prosecutors and judges, they are doing the same time as cold-blooded killers.

To be fair, our criminal justice system must rise above politics and
rhetoric. For it to be legitimate, sentences must be proportionate to the
crime. The goal of "three strikes" law is to get violent, repeat felons off
our streets. "Three strikes" law must be reformed to achieve its goal in a
more just and efficient way.

Tom Hayden
State Senator
Los Angeles