THREE STRIKES: INEFFECTIVE, COSTLY

Supporters of California's three~strikes law hold as almost an article of
faith that the measure, which mandates life prison terms for repeat felons,
is responsible for the remarkable decline in crime in recent years. Yet new
findings cast considerable doubt on this belief. It is time for some sober
reflection on three strikes.

Yes, serious crime has fallen sharply since the law took effect, by 24% in
the 1994-97 pend. But five years after its passage, the emerging picture
indicates that the three strikes law might not be the cause. A study
released last week assert7s that the law has no measurable effect on
reducing violence.

The study, by the Justice Policy Institute in San Francisco, found that
crime had fallen at about the same rate in counties that aggressively
enforced the three-strike law, like Los Angeles, as in those that do not,
like Alameda and San Francisco.

What is clear amid the conflicting statistics is that the law is pushing
state prisons to the breaking point. Three strikes doubles the sentence of
second-time felons and mandates 25 to life for those convicted of any third
felony, whether residential burglary or first-degree murder. The prison
population is now near capacity, with inmates doubled up in cells and with
gyms and day rooms turned into dormitories. And no new prisons are planned
or under construction.

Each prisoner costs taxpayers about $21,000 annually, meaning a 25-year
sentence will eat up $500,000 m public money.

The Justice Policy Institute study found that only 1% of the 40,000 second-
and third-strike inmates were convicted of murder. Two-thirds were serving
time for property crimes, such as theft, or drug offenses, mostly possession
of narcotics. Is this the best use of scarce prison space and tax dollars?

These findings have prompted a handful of lawmakers, including some
Republicans, to consider whether three strikes needs fine tuning.
Assemblyman Scott Baugh (R-Huntington Beach) and Sen. John Vasconcellos
(D-Santa Clara) have introduced bills calling for pointed studies of the
law's costs and effects. This is a wise move, and passage of these bills
would be a just and courageous step, given the sacred status that three
strikes assumed for most lawmakers when it became yet another ill-considered
amendment to the California Constitution via an initiative in 1994.

Amending the law to target violent criminals, which makes the most sense,
would require another constitutional amendment, which is virtually
impossible, or a two-thirds vote of the legislature, a high hurdle. But
lawmakers are finally beginning to ask the right questions about the costs
and effects of this law, which was written with much emotionalism and little
logic. It's an alI-to-common problem of the haphazard initiative process.
Unlike some initiatives that are foolish but relatively harmless, the
three-strikes law has done real harm that is extremely hard to undo.