NO, NO, NO ON PROP. 66

DON'T BE DECEIVED by Proposition 66. It seeks to amend the three-strikes
law so that the third strike must be a specified violent and/or serious
crime for the increased 25-to-life sentence to be applicable. It suggests
that the state's tough three-strikes law is so harsh that many people
behind bars are petty criminals who steal loaves of bread to feed their
hungry families.

That is seldom the case. It is true that many felons end up "struck out"
because their third strikes are smaller crimes. But it is equally true that
those crimes are felonies. The whole idea here is to look at the cumulative
record of the individual.

Judges take note of that, and often find before them petty thieves or drug
criminals who have committed multiple felonies. The entire record, the
whole rap sheet, sits before judges for examination. They have the
discretion to look at the person's case history and sentence accordingly.
Without the judges' discretion, the state's prisons would be even more
crowded than they are now -- and this proposition might be worthy of
consideration. But it is not.

Prop. 66 calls for dramatic changes that weaken crime laws as well as the
10-year-old, three-strikes law. It redefines multiple violent crimes and
felonies, and in some cases could take the teeth out of murder charges.
Suddenly, some crimes, such as nonresidential arson resulting in no
significant injuries would no longer be a serious crime rating an increased
sentence. And as a first offense, it wouldn't count as a strike at all.
Burglary of an unoccupied residence, not serious. Conspiracy to commit
assault, not serious. Threats, no big deal. Felony gang crimes, no longer
serious or violent. Oh, and others that would not be serious include
inflicting significant injury on a person while committing a felony, such
as drunken driving -- if the injury (or death) is unintentional.

That wouldn't be violent or serious. And that wouldn't be why the primary
monetary backer wants this proposition. It couldn't have anything to do
with his son being in prison for drunken driving that resulted in the death
of two passengers.

The initiative also would change how strikes are added up. Instead of each
crime being a strike, each prosecution would be a strike. The proposition
would require multiple trials for each separate offense to count as a strike.

Supporters say this proposition isn't soft on crime, but that's balderdash.
It clearly is softer on crime.

Also quite significant is that this proposition is retroactive and will
send thousands of felons back to court for resentencing. Some will not have
to return to prison. That's going to be financially burdensome for
communities, not to mention dangerous. Statistics and studies have
indicated that the three-strikes law is working to get dangerous criminals
off the street and that it lowers the state's crime rate.

If there are, indeed, things that need revisited in the law then they
should be done, but not with this initiative. Prop. 66 would be a serious
setback for crime-fighting and public safety all over California.

We urge a no vote on Prop. 66.

For a list of the Times' endorsements so far readers may go to
www.contracostatimes.com