EXISTING LAW GOES BIT TOO FAR

Chances of softening California's three-strikes law are slim, given the
opposition to reform on the part of law enforcement agencies. Nevertheless,
we support a bill by Sen. Tom Hayden that would allow judges some latitude
in imposing sentences in three-strikes cases.

We have no quarrel with the law's basic concept. When an offender commits
three serious felonies - murder, rape, armed robbery and the like - a
sentence of 25 years to life is justified.

When the measure was put to a public vote back in 1994, Californias approved
it overwhelmingly. So did this newspaper, and in recommending a change or
two in the language, we by no means favor weakening the basic structure.

Hayden, a Democrat who represents Los Angeles, took up the issue of reform
when same cases that resulted in extreme punishment were brought to his
attention.

In one case in particular, a young man was given the prescribed maximum
sentence after a felong conviction. His crime: serving as a lookout for a
drug deal.

Should the defendant have been absolved of the crime? Of course not. A
prison term was entirely called for - but a term whose punishment more
equitable fit the crime.

A spokesman for the California District Attorneys Association, argues
against any change in the law on the ground that it is working. It is. It
would work even better, as we see it, if tempered - in certain situations -
not with mercy, but with fairness.