REPORT CALLS `THREE STRIKES' LAW A `BUST'

With the fifth anniversary of California's ``three strikes, you're out''
statute approaching, two reports are offering opposite conclusions on how
successful the tougher-sentencing law has been in reducing crime.

A report by the Justice Policy Institute of San Francisco labeled three
strikes a ``bust,'' saying data show no evidence that the law has led to
declines in crime. It compared crime rates in counties that frequently rely
on the law with those that use it only sparingly.

By contrast, Secretary of State Bill Jones said three strikes is the
predominant reason major categories of crime have gone down in the past five
years statewide and attributed to it savings of as much as $8 billion.

Called `effective deterrent'

`` `Three strikes' has revolutionized the way we combat crime in this
country,'' Jones said. ``By closing the revolving prison door, we have
created an effective deterrent to crime that has helped reduce the crime
rate in California by 38 percent in just five years.''

But the truth is probably somewhere between those two extremes, said Mike
Rustigan, a San Francisco State University criminologist.

``It is a factor that has to be considered with other factors, but it's not
the sole reason why crime is down,'' Rustigan said. He added, ``I don't
think there's any question that there are felons out there who have two
felony convictions who could be deterred because now they are facing 25
years to life.''

The law, generally praised by conservatives but assailed by liberals, can
lengthen sentences to 25 years to life when someone with two prior serious
felony convictions is found guilty of a third serious felony. Prosecutors in
individual counties decide whether to seek that enhanced punishment.

As an assemblyman, Jones was one of the driving forces behind the law.
Supporters said it would deter some criminals and keep the minority of
offenders believed responsible for a disproportionately large portion of
serious crimes incarcerated longer.

Groups like the Justice Policy Institute were opposed to it, saying it would
lead to busted budgets and overcrowded courts and prisons while failing to
curtail violence.

Former Gov. Pete Wilson signed three strikes into law March 7, 1994, and an
initiative version was passed by voters the following November.

Crime drops in lenient counties

In its study, the institute points out that crime has dropped in every
region regardless of whether they had provisions similar to three strikes
come into play frequently -- or at all. It found that counties that strictly
enforced the law did not experience a greater decline in crime than more
lenient counties.

It cites statistics that San Francisco, which enforces the law most
sparingly, experienced a greater decline in crime than the six heaviest
enforcing counties. Moreover, it says that Santa Clara County, which heavily
enforces the law, showed an increase in violent crime after first
implementing it.

``All the rhetoric and political grandstanding behind `three strikes' has
blinded us,'' Dan Macallair, one of the study's authors, said in a
statement.

It concludes by offering three recommendations: an outright repeal of three
strikes, an amendment to the law that would allow only those convicted of a
violent offense as their last crime to receive harsher penalties, or a
detailed cost-benefit analysis of the law.

But Jones said the Justice Policy Institute let bias get in the way of the
facts. He said there has been ``an exodus of parolees'' from the state since
three strikes was enacted. In a telephone interview, he conceded that other
factors contributed to the overall decline in crime, but said three strikes
was the chief one.