LET THE PUNISHMENT FIT THE CRIME

California courts began last week-finally-shaving away some of the most
draconian sections of the state's "three strikes law" in a decision that
could better fit punishment to the nature of the crime.

By a unanimous vote, "the court threw out an eight-year prison term for a
San Diego man who was sentenced under the three-strikes law because he had a
previous conviction in juvenile court for a residential burglary," The San
Francisco Chronicle reported.

The court ruled that a juvenile crime can count as a "strike" only when the
offense is so serious that the offender can be tried as an adult, such as
for murder or arson.

The "three strikes" law began as Prop. 184, approved by voters in 1994, and
passed by the state Legislature the same year, with the same wording.

The idea was that an unambiguous and severe punishment, albeit with some
judiciary discretion, would help deter crime. It was simple - three strikes
and you're out. For a third felony, Prop. 184 mandated prison sentences of
triple the regular sentence, or of 25-years-to-life, whichever is greater.

While the concept was aimed at the worst of crimes, the new law applied to
violent and non-violent infractions alike - they all added to the count,
whether the first felony conviction was a juvenile offense or the third
felony conviction was non-violent, such as writing a bad check.

In the case of Edwin Garcia that the court decided last week, we would agree
that juvenile offenders should be punished. But punishment should meet the
crime, not be the pretext for potential sentence of 25-years-to-life at some
date in the future.

"It's a very encouraging first step toward refining a very draconian and
unreasonable law," Gilbert Geis, professor emeritus of criminology at the
University of California, Irvine, told us.

What about judges overturning the will of the people? The point of the
judiciary is to balance different rights, in this case degree of punishment
versus the U.S Constitution and the Fourth Amendment right to protection
"against unreasonable searches and seizures." The California Constitution
also guarantees the right "to not suffer the imposition of cruel or unusual
punishment."

Moreover, Mr. Geis said, "Voters voted for three-strikes and didn't
understand it. If you present the facts to them today" - that it counts
juvenile offenses and non-violent third crimes as strikes - "voters would
say, 'I didn't know that'."

He believes the court needs to take an additional step. "Now they should get
rid of the third strike that's a minor inconsequential offense," he said.
These might be, for example, drug possession or writing a bad check. "The
court should fine-tune this so it gets only violent offenders. All you're
doing now is wasting the taxpayers' money and putting the wrong people in
jail. I would have no objection to putting violent offenders in jail for a
long jail term for a third strike."

Reform certainly is needed. As of mid-1998 in California, 387 people were
serving third-strike terms of 25 years-to-life for possession of a
controlled substance, 227 for petty theft with a prior conviction and 100
for receiving stolen property. That's just too severe a penalty for those
offenses.

Proponents of the harshest third-strike mandates point out that crime has
been dripping since 1994, when three-strikes was enacted. But as we have
noted in the past, crime actually began dripping in 1991. And crime has been
dropping across the nation, even in states with less-severe three-strikes
laws - or no such laws.

"Justice" is the key word here. Criminals need to be punished both to pay a
price for their crimes and to deter others from committing crimes. But
justice demands proportionate punishment, not vengeance.