New ballot initiative: The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012
By Kymberly Bays | 11/29/2011 | California, Safety | 17 CommentsThe Three Strikes law was enacted in California in the mid-1990s at the height of strong public reaction to the brutal murder of two girls. It created a system of much harsher sentences– including life sentences– for third time offenders, even if their crimes were non-violent misdemeanors. The result over a decade later is a California prison system overcrowded to the point of crisis. Meanwhile, the inconsistencies allowed by the law have resulted in mind-boggling sentencing disparities. Take the case of this California man:
“In 1995, just one year after Californians enacted the Three Strikes policy, a man named Curtis stole a $2.50 pair of socks. Because he had been convicted of abetting two robberies in 1981 as a 19-year-old, his most recent crime was ‘strike three.’ Curtis was given a life sentence.”
While Curtis got a life sentence for ultimately stealing a pair of socks, the criminal justice system in California gave a different punishment to a man named John who committed a different crime. After sexually assaulting a 13 year old girl in 2000, John Gardner received only six years in prison, and served only five of them before being released on parole. This despite a 2000 probation report containing this conclusion from a psychiatrist: that John Gardner had “significant predatory traits toward underage girls and should be kept in prison for as long as possible.” After his release, Gardner would rape and murder two more underage girls. The system had failed to keep them safe.
Under the status quo, justice and public safety have apparently been turned on their head. The system is often too harsh on those who don’t deserve it and pose no threat to society, while at the same time being too lenient toward violent offenders who pose a serious and predictable threat to the rest of society and have already committed horrific crimes. It is this inversion of justice that the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (full text here) seeks to remedy. Its authors say it will 1) require murderers, rapists, and child molesters to serve life sentences; 2) require life sentences only when an offender’s current conviction is a violent or serious crime; 3) give repeat offenders of misdemeanors like shoplifting twice the normal sentence instead of life; 4) save millions of taxpayer dollars; and 5) prioritize the early release of non-violent criminals over violent ones when necessary to relieve overcrowding.
Depending on how Californians feel about the initiative’s specific details, there’s a good chance they will be receptive to it. One poll earlier this year found a whopping “74% of all voters want Three Strikes revised so it is less draconian, with more leeway in sentencing allowed, which would leave prisons less crowded.”






Leave Your Comment →
17 Comments
Bhartich
11.29.2011
Wow. This is very interesting. I had no idea that a man could be given a life sentence for stealing shoes. I will need to do more research, but as of now this new ballot initiative sounds like a great idea!
Anonymous
11.29.2011
Cases like John Gardner and Curtis just prove how flawed our prison system is. Inmates recently went on a hunger strike because living conditions are so poor, there have been recent suicides, there is overcrowding-something definitely needs to be done. Brown’s realignment plan just isn’t enough. Hopefully reforming the Three Strikes Act will help cut down prison spending and better the living conditions of the inmates.
New Ballot Initiative in CA: The Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 | Voice of the Revolution
11.29.2011
[...] in prison for life without forcing non-violent offenders to spend years behind bars.” Read the entire article at The Independent Voter Network.Sam Brownback’s Office Freaks over Teen TweetAbout Wesley [...]
mmetzner
11.29.2011
This article points out a major problem with mandatory sentencing. When judges are required to impose a sentence that was established in response to a highly-publicized crime we should anticipate problems. Readers should also understand that life sentences does not mean the perpetrator will spend the rest of their life in prison. CA should address its recidivism/rehabilitation problem instead of its sentencing if it wants to see progress in prison reform. The proposal also includes longer sentencing for multiple misdemeanors which will create the same problem with less severe crimes.
Onlooker from Troy
11.29.2011
Another problem with 3 Strikes is the unintended consequence that makes a criminal with 2 strikes more likely to kill any witnesses in a third crime because they’re already facing life, so why not get rid of a witness to enhance their chances of not getting caught. And similar situations that follow from this flawed law.
Trevor Polischuk
11.29.2011
Mandatory minimums that take away discretion from judges is a terrible development in our judicial system. We must defer to the relevant facts in a case and the judges willingness to consider different punishments for different crimes. One size fits all mandates have had a terrible effect here in California and across the country.
Anonymous
11.29.2011
Clearly the author of this article has no idea how the system really works. The prison overcrowding crisis is not because of three strikes. It had to do with Steve Cooley in the LA DAs office and his incompetence to prosecute crime in a fair and just fashion. 600,000 felony prosecutions have come out of LA in the last 10 years and 1/3 of the states prison population. He seeks the maximum terms for all possible sentences and recently admitted this in an interview as he was blaming Jerry Brown for the Conrad Murray case due to realignment. He brags about their office’s felony statistics. Now none of these guys can get jobs. Christ Cooley has created a second class of citizens who are all now ex-felons. If Cooley gave the prosecutors discretion to do the right thing in all cases, the state prison would not be filled with drug and petty crime offenders in the first place. Cooley’s office already reduces strikes if the third one isn’t serious or violent and has been doing that for at least the last five years.
The author of this article needs to talk to a deputy DA in LA to get the real scoop, because clearly you are not in the know about what happens. The simplest fix is to give the DAs the abilty to do the right thing in all cases including decrease charges for petty crimes so that the prisons aren’t filled with non violent people in the first place. Ask any DA in LA that isn’t one of Cooley’s mouth pieces and they will tell you that Cooley is the problem we have this crisis due to his incompetence and felonizing over 600,000 people in the ten years he has been in charge. Let’s not pretend Cooley is going to support this and fix the problem he created. Give me a break and use your journalism to report what is really happening.
dnarby
11.29.2011
Perhaps, but what on Earth does that have to do with giving someone LIFE IN PRISON FOR STEALING A PAIR OF SOCKS?!
Anonymous
11.29.2011
Cooley’s office doesn’t do that. If they steal a pair of socks, they don’t get a third strike in LA County. The judges strike a strike or the prosecutor seeks a lesser charge. In LA County, only serious and violent crimes get a third strike.
Cooley has overcrowded the prisons so much that the system is emploding and low level offenders are felonized with no ability to reform or get a job. I won’t hire a felon, will you? Felon should mean scarry evil person, but under Cooley, he is bragging about his felony statistic. If you are in a car with a friend who has marajuana, you will get a felony charge. If you have a baseball bat in your backseat, that is a weapon and you will get a felony charge. COOLEY HAS TO GO. Discretion needs to be restored not wasted money on a new law. The LA DA is wasted and that is the problem!
dnarby
11.29.2011
You make some points, but you are still engaging in the old “Changing the Subject” fallacy. Fact is, some guy got life for STEALING A PAIR OF SOCKS.
Changing The Subject (Digression, Red Herring, Misdirection, False Emphasis):
this is sometimes used to avoid having to defend a claim, or to avoid
making good on a promise. In general, there is something you are not
supposed to notice.For example, I got a bill which had a big announcement about how
some tax had gone up by 5%, and the costs would have to be passed on
to me. But a quick calculation showed that the increased tax was only
costing me a dime, while a different part of the the bill had silently
gone up by $10. This is connected to various diversionary tactics, which may be
obstructive, obtuse, or needling. For
example, if you quibble about the meaning of some word a person used,
they may be quite happy about being corrected, since that means
they’ve derailed you, or changed the subject. They may pick nits in
your wording, perhaps asking you to define “is”. They may
deliberately misunderstand you: “You said this happened five years before Hitler came to power. Why
are you so fascinated with Hitler ? Are you anti-Semitic ?”
It is also connected to various rhetorical tricks, such as
announcing that there cannot be a question period because the speaker
must leave. (But then he doesn’t leave.)
Anonymous
11.29.2011
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwGFalTRHDA Right back at ya baby!!
Rich McKone
11.30.2011
There may be good reasons to change the “3-strikes” law but “3-strikes” is not the reason for prison overcrowding. California, like most states, has always had habitual criminal and dangerous offender laws. “3-Strikers” constitute only 5% of the prison population and 1% of the county jail population. A 65,000 county jail shortage, not “3- strikes”, is the reason for prison overcrowding. The jail shortage caused the shift of technical violators and wobblers from jails to prison where they now occupy over 48,000 expensive prison beds. Realignment will just return the minor offenders back to counties where they belong, saving about $1 billion in annual prison operating costs.
Star_alliance2011
11.30.2011
I really enjoyed this article and I am happy that a ballot initiative to change the 3 strike method is going to be on the ballot because it is a totally messed up system. The problem is when we assign certain automatic sentencing punishments to criminals because there are way too many different degrees of crime. Thanks for this article and I will continue to look into and study this ballot initiative.
Guest
12.01.2011
US law is ABSOLUTELY CRAZY: In California, you can get lifetime imprisonment for stealing a pizza or non-violent drug offenses, so that prisons are overcrowded with non-violent people (the money should be invested in healthcare, social systems, and eduucation), and in Florida, the “Stand-Your-Ground Law” allows you to get away with murder, just by saying you felt threatened by your victim. Since the introduction of that Law, number of killings has doubled. But everybody wants to have his own gun and can have it with no problems, and when a massacre happens, people pretend to be shocked, but just one week later, they have forgotten it completely and continue to buy–and use–guns and protest gun control. If you lose a beloved person–who cares? Remember, IN THE US, A PIZZA IS MORE VALUABLE THAN A HUMAN LIFE.
Marilyn
12.01.2011
Other states benefit from sentencing commissions, why not California?
Follow the money through the criminal justice and massive incarceration systems to learn why we spend more on prisons than on education.
dc
12.02.2011
i always thought that you receive a strike per case not per charge. why is a strike given for non-violent offense anyway. i’ve seen people strike out with one case. two of the charges were non-violent!
Roseelisegray
02.23.2012
We need to stop paying to support non-violent criminals in our prisons while the dangerous individuals walk the streets due to “lack of space.”