THREE STRIKES LAW AS SEEN FROM THE VIEW OF A PARENT

We parents with our prodigal children who are facing the three strikes law
find it difficult to think of our children in the same cold way that Rodney
W.Bell and Jeff Lane seem to think of them ["Society is well served by the
three-strikes law," Talk Show, May 5].

I wonder if they have children and, if so, would they still be able to say
"it doesn't make any difference whether the third strike is stealing jeans
or robbing a bank." Would they say that their child is a "habitual criminal
who needs to be off the streets"? Even if the offense has been a
non-serious or non-violent crime?

The three-strikes law offers no redemption. No mercy. It condemns forever.
It is hopeless. It puts even the drug addict into a bottomless pit. It does
nothing to produce a positive change, and in 25 years or more, the public
reaps exactly what is sown. But for a while, the problem is out of sight,
out of mind. "Those criminals" are somebody's children. They might be
yours, they could be mine, and I would rather see my child, who is of great
value, reach "the bottom" and have the opportunity to change and pull
himself out of a hole, even after many, many wrong choices.

We, as parents, had better take this merciless three-strikes law serious
and get to Doug Kieso's group meetings, Families to Amend California's
Three-Stikes. Mercy triumphs over judgement.

Barbara J. Brooks: Fullerton

Checked-by: jwjohnson@netmagic.net (Joel W. Johnson)