THREE-STRIKES LAW IS MISSING THE MARK

Justice: Grandfather Of A Slain Girl Concludes That The Statute Is Locking
Up The Nonviolent Criminal, Not The Violent.

Six years ago, my granddaughter, Polly Klaas, was snatched from her bedroom
and murdered by a man who should have been behind bars. In response, our
family and Californians rose up and passed the "three strikes" law, a law
designed to remove predators like her murderer, Richard Allen Davis, from
our streets. Or so we thought.

Five years later, the data suggest that most people locked up for second or
third strikes are not like Polly's killer. Rather, the majority have been
convicted of nonviolent crimes, like marijuana possession or petty theft.

Added to the grief that Polly's death has caused, my family now regrets
that the law passed in her name casts too wide a net, fails to target the
hard-core offenders it set out to reach and has diverted critical funds
from crime prevention and education.

Now the California Legislature is considering a bill that could help put
our minds at rest. Introduced by Sen. John Vasconcellos (D-Santa Clara),
the bill would authorize the state legislative analyst to study the impact
of the three-strikes law. By signing this bill, Gov. Gray Davis could set
in motion a process that will help us separate facts from fiction.

When they sought our votes, the sponsors of three-strikes promised the
public that their bill would remove dangerous criminals from our streets.
Today, only a fraction of those serving 25-to-life sentences fit that
profile, while a staggering 78% of second-strikers and 50% of third
strikers were convicted for nonviolent offenses. Crime has plummeted in
the Golden State since 1994. But while three-strikes proponents have cited
this as irrefutable proof that the law works, no evidence links the statute
to this welcome decline. In fact, the drop in crime merely reflects a
national trend that has seen crime fall at a quicker rate in
non-three-strikes states like Michigan and Alabama than in California.

Meanwhile, California's prisons are bursting at the seams. More than
160,000 inmates are jammed into prisons that were made to house 80,000, and
almost one-third of those prisoners are serving second-or third-strike
sentences. Three-strikes enforcement will tie up billions of taxpayers
dollars for decades to come.

Consider the following: * Each prisoner serving a 25-to-life sentence will
cost the state about $500,000 over his or her lifetime. * The annual cost
of housing 29,000 nonviolent second-or third-strikers is $632 million. *
Los Angeles County, which prosecutes about 40% of three-strikes cases
statewide, racked up $322 million in enforcement costs from 1994 through
1997. * San Francisco has not sought three-strikes convictions for
nonviolent offenses, yet crime (both violent and nonviolent) has fallen
faster there than in Los Angeles.

The impact of three-strikes reverberates far beyond the prison walls.
Defendants who fear adding strikes to their name are bringing the legal
system to a virtual standstill as they reject plea bargains and opt for
trial. And with second-and third-strikers flooding our prisons, other
serious offenders are securing early release with alarming frequency.

The time has come for Californians to pose a painful question: Does
three-strikes offer enough benefits to justify its huge fiscal and societal
impact?

In a climate in which the words "soft on crime" sound the death knell for
anyone who aspires to political office, few in power dare question the
value of the three-strikes statute. How many more prisons must we build
before our leaders realize that locking up more nonviolent offenders
doesn't equal being tough on crime? My family and I understand more than
most why we need strict laws that prevent monsters like Richard Allen Davis
from hurting our kids, But we also owe it to ourselves to be smart about
law enforcement. We must seek out the truth about three-strikes and inform
the debate with solid facts and figures.

It's too late to bring Polly back. But it's not too late for Gov. Davis and
the Legislature to take this step toward making California a wiser, safer
state.