'THREE STRIKES'REFORM FOULS OUT

Prospects for serious reform of California's draconian "three strikes"
law appear dim, at least for this year. Santa Monica Democratic Sen.
Tom Hayden's S.B. 79, which would require that a third "strike" would
have to be a serious or violent felony (rather than any felony) to
merit a 25-years-to-life sentence, is languishing and will probably
not be brought up for a full Senate vote this year. That means it
would become a "two-year" bill, subject to a vote during the next
legislative session next January.

That leaves San Jose Democratic Sen. John Vasconcellos' S.B. 873,
which would authorize a joint study on the costs and benefits of the
"three strikes" law by the legislative analyst in cooperation with the
Judicial Council, the attorney general and the University of
California. A similar bill passed the Legislature last year but was
vetoed by then-Gov. Pete Wilson. Sen. Vasconcellos (who heads the
Public Safety Committee) expects his bill to pass again this year.

Rocky Rushing, Sen. Hayden's chief of staff, candidly acknowledged to
us last week the S.B. 79 probably wouldn't have passed even the full
Senate this year because questions about California's uniquely onerous
"three strikes" law are not yet widespread enough to deflect fears by
elected politicians that they could be viewed as "soft on crime" by
voters. Mr. Rushing believes organizations such as the California
District Attorneys Association - which actually backed a version of a
"three strikes" law similar to what S.B. 79 would put in place early
in the debate - will have to be at least neutral on "three strikes"
reform before elected politicians will have the political cover to
support reform openly.

"We have about 5,000 inmates in state prison on a 'third strike' now,
and about half of them are in for non-violent crimes," Mr. Rushing
told us, "but many taxpayers are not yet fully aware of what an
incredible burden has been placed on them."

A few reminders are in order. Some 26 states and the federal
government have enacted some version of a "three strikes" law that
mandates enhanced punishment for a third violent offense. California
is the only jurisdiction in which a non-serious, non-violent felony
can be counted as a strike. It is one of only seven states with
enhanced punishment for a second "strike."

And California is one of the few states without a time limit to
activate enhanced punishment - in most states it takes three violent
crimes within five years for "three strikes" to kick in. California is
almost the only jurisdiction in which juvenile offenses can be counted
as a "strike."

As a consequence, as of the middle of last year, the state had 227
people serving 25-to-life at the taxpayers' expense whose third strike
was petty theft with a prior, 100 for receiving stolen property, 387
for possession of a controlled substance and 240 for possession of a
weapon.

"Three-strikes" advocates like to claim that the law has been at least
partly responsible for reducing serious crime. We havae noted
anomalies in crime-reporting methods that make it dubious to use them
as the basis for year-to-year comparisons. Even the FBI website
(fbi.gov./ucr/faqs.htm) acknowledges certain shortcomings and cautions
readers against various kinds of simplistic comparisons.

Taking this into account, however, it is worth noting that the
official statistics show crime beginning to decline in California in
1991 and declining steadily since then. The "three strikes" law,
passed in 1994, neither increased nor decreased the rate of decline.
Crime has declined in states without "strikes" laws at virtually the
same rate as it has declined in states with such laws.

California's "three strikes" law costs taxpayers hundreds of million
of dollars a year, has led to injustices in sentencing and has no
demonstrable impact on crime rates.

It will be a long and difficult job to spread the knowledge and build
the necessary support, but changing this law should be near the top of
the agenda of any politician who claims to value substance over symbolism.