EDITORIAL -- STATE SUPREME COURT HANDCUFFS THE JUDGES

IN LIMITING the discretion of judges to apply common sense to sentencing
under the ``three strikes'' law, the state Supreme Court went precisely in
the wrong direction.

Judges need more authority to consider the evidence when applying a law
that calls for life imprisonment for third felony convictions. Otherwise
California will continue to spend precious resources locking people up for
life even when their final felony involves a stolen pizza or a bounced check.

The 1994 ``three strikes'' initiative has helped put the state on course to
a prison population of 250,000 by 2006.

In its latest decision, the Supreme Court significantly narrowed its 1996
ruling that gave judges some latitude to refuse to impose a ``three
strike'' sentence if they found that it was too harsh in view of the facts
of the case. This new ruling forbids sentence reductions for defendants
whose past or present conduct fell within ``the spirit of the three-strikes
law.''

So what does all that legalese mean? The upshot is that it means judges are
going to have a harder time justifying anything other than a life term for
a third felony convic tion -- or ``strike.''

The case that brought the decision involved Reginald Eugene Williams, a Los
Angeles area man whose third strike was for driving under the influence of
drugs, a charge that can be treated as a felony or misdemeanor.

Williams was no angel. He had a long criminal record, and he earned his
trip back to prison. But Williams had not been convicted of any violent
felonies in 13 years. The judge had sentenced him to nine years, but the
prosecution appealed -- citing the ``three strikes law.''

He now faces 28 years to life.

The ``three strikes law'' emerged from the public outrage over Richard
Allen Davis, a violent predator who kept bouncing in and out of prison
until he kidnapped and killed 12-year-old Polly Klaas of Petaluma. Keeping
the Richard Allen Davises of the world in prison is money well spent. The
real ``spirit of three strikes'' was to make sure that such repeat violent
offenders do not keep getting extra chances to prey on society. The latest
court ruling, however, clings to a rigid formula that is overreaching and
expensive.

California legislators now must have the political courage to come up with
a clear and sensible plan that defines ``third strikes'' as serious and
violent felonies. In all other cases, the judges should be free to do their
jobs of assessing an appropriate sentence.

©1998 San Francisco Chronicle