THREE STRIKES LAW SERVES STATE WELL

I recognize your opposition to the "Three Stikes" law dates at least to its
passage in 1994, but I expected a more thorough analysis of the facts than
your editorial advocating an effort to weaken California's "Three Strikes"
law.

Your call for the third "stike" to be a violent felony is the same old
mantra of liberal legislators who have fought "Three Strikes" since its
inception. Your argument ignores the spirit of the law: Lock up career
criminals before they do violence to another victim.

You suggest that a felon should have to commit murder, rape, kidnaping or
carjacking on top of two previous violent or serious felonies before
society finally says "that's enough" and locks up the criminal for good.
"Three Strikes" was intended to deter career criminals. The idea is that
they will either be behind bars where they can't harm lawabiding citizens
or they'll avoid committing felonies because of the threat of life in
prison.

The anecdotal and statistical evidence shows that "Three Strikes" era,
marking the largest fouryear drop in California's history.

It is no coincidence that the drop in crime correlates with the passage of
"Three Strikes." That law's implementation occurred within the context of
the use of communityoriented policing, as well as truthinsentencing laws
and other tough law changes that closed the revolving doors of our prisons.

Simply put, California voters understood that they would be safer when they
overwhelmingly approved "Three Strikes." I hope you'll reconsider your
opposition to the common sense enacted by the people.