California Proposition 36 Three Strikes Sentencing
By Bob Morris | 10/09/2012 | Ballot Initiatives, California, Headline, Safety | 13 Comments
Credit: latimes.com
Proposition 36 seeks to change the California Three Strikes sentencing, which began in 1994 when Prop 184 passed. Under the current Three Strikes law, a person with two serious or violent felony convictions receives a sentence of life with a minimum term of 25 years for a third conviction, regardless of its seriousness. Under California Proposition 36 Three Strikes sentencing, those with two or more violent or serious convictions whose new offense is nonserious would instead receive a sentence double the usual prison term. In addition, this would be retroactive. Some current Three Strikers would have their terms reduced.
- Revises the three strikes law to impose life sentence only when a new felony conviction is serious or violent.
- Authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if the third strike conviction was not serious or violent and a judge determines that the sentence does not pose unreasonable risk to public safety.
- Continues to impose life sentence penalty if the third strike conviction was for certain nonserious, nonviolent sex or drug offenses or involved firearm possession.
- Maintains the life sentence penalty for felons with nonserious, non-violent third strike if prior convictions were for rape, murder, or child molestation.
Like Proposition 34, which would repeal the death penalty, Proposition 36 deals with highly emotional issues where voters are likely to have strong opinions. The proposition would save the state $70-100 million a year, only a tiny part of the multi-billion dollar California budget. However, finances are not what the debate on Prop 36 is about at core. Should those with violent or serious felony convictions currently serving time for nonserious crimes have their sentences reduced?
The No on 36 campaign says:
This is a very dangerous initiative that would allow almost one-half of California’s 3 Strike prison inmates to be re-sentenced and released. 100% of these convicted criminals have 2 or more serious or violent prior felonies. By changing the third strike requirement to also be serious or violent it not only provides the opportunity for a repeat offender to impact yet more victims, it also stops far fewer serious and violent criminals far later in their career. In other words: Too little too late!
This reform initiative is simply a bad idea at the worst possible time.
The Yes on 36 campaign says Proposition 36 will:
Eliminate unintended and ineffective life sentences currently imposed for nonviolent, non-serious crimes.
Restore the original intent and core purpose of the Three Strikes law: to keep dangerous and violent criminals behind bars.
Save $100 million per year to fund schools, prevent crime, and decrease the need for tax increases.
For every Three Striker doing life for a minor crime that Yes on 36 might highlight to show unfairness of sentencing, No on 36 can, no doubt, counter them with tales of inmates released who then committed violent crimes. Voters will need to decide which side they support.




Leave Your Comment →
13 Comments
Jane Susskind
10.09.2012
@jsusskind
This is a controversial law, it will definitely draw some CA voters to the polls. The No on 36 makes a good point–letting people out of jail when they are repeat offenders is an unnerving thought. But I also think that a major problem in CA is overcrowding in prison and our prison system in general. It may not be necessary to hold someone in prison for a non-violent crime. I also believe in second chances, so believe that people can and do change.
Bob Morris
10.09.2012
@Bob_Morris
Sentences in the US are generally considerably harsher than elsewhere. I know of a Three Striker currently doing 40 to life. He’s a skinhead, two violent priors, beat up someone badly outside a 7-11, and went in prison at age 35 and will get out when he’s 75. No, he’s not a nice person, but that sentence seems excessive to me. (Prop 36, if it passes, won’t help him.)
I’ve been clean and sober a long time and know more than a few men who led extremely violent lives who became regular citizens once they put down the drugs and alcohol.
Matt Metzner
10.09.2012
@mmetzner
Judges are better suited to make these decisions on a case by case basis rather than voters making a sweeping reform without understanding the cases the new law affects.
Chad Peace
10.09.2012
@Chad_Peace
Another well-intended law that should not be handled by referendum … even if all the facts were true, our overloaded criminal courts would NEVER be able to handle the re-sentencing of thousands and thousands of inmates.
Blaz Gutierrez
10.09.2012
@blazgutierrez
I think that you’re talking about two separate issues here, Chad. I’m not sure that the extreme defunding of our state courts should impede someone’s shot at freedom after having been sentenced for a third-strike that involved a minor offense.
Michael Higham
10.09.2012
@michaelhigham
I feel like the No on Prop 36 statements is basically touting a two-strikes rule. By stressing the fact that three-strike offenders have already committed two serious crimes, I get the impression that opponents think its enough for a 25 to life. Maybe it is. In a perfect world, judges would be able to rule on a case-by-case basis in great detail but imagine the courts’ workload if Prop 36 does pass.
Lucas Eaves
10.09.2012
@lucaseaves
I never heard of that rule. But the idea that if you have had 2 serious conviction, at the third one, regardless of the gravity, you are sentence to 25 to life seems crazy. If the law was not retroactive, it would be easier.
Terri Harel
10.09.2012
@tlharel
With the amount of overcrowding in prison, I think this (and prop 34) are extremely important to consider. Prison are a relatively large percentage of the budget. More money goes to prisons than to higher education.
Alex Gauthier
10.09.2012
@alexg
“This reform initiative is simply a bad idea at the worst possible time.” Though I can see how the prop might concern some voters, that line sounds like fear mongering to me.
Emma Goda
10.09.2012
@emmagoda
I know this has been said but the prisons are overcrowded and this makes Prop 36 an important issue for voters.
tracy young
10.11.2012
Really I think that the 3 strikes law is very harsh and that some people serving life or 25yrs deserver another try at life some people live and learn. From there mistakes and really do need a second chace if its not rape or murder or someone that’s really a threat then I go for which ever is best
tracy young
10.11.2012
really not to be negitive but voicing our opinion on he probaldont make a difference really is it gonna change anything for inmates is it gonna take away the r strikes law thats the purposel they need to be making to drop the r strikes and give inmates a second chance and yes letting some inmates out early and giving the ones thats on a third strike a lesser charge or lesser time any it will help with funds for education and more research and money to help the city with road commition its alot that the money they using for the over crowding of the prison could be use for i strongly suggest that they try to get the r strikes law out really can somone tell me how they feel about this
Ellen D
10.20.2012
Unless you have a loved one who was sentenced under the three strikes law, you do not really know how unjustly they have applied this law. Punishment should fit the crime… period. How can we justify a life sentence for theft, when we have child molesters, rapists and murders getting shorter sentences just because they don’t have prior ‘strikes’? Yes, my husband is serving 25 – life for stealing some watches. He was wild in his youth and had some prior felony drug charges. He has served 17 years already. Are you really going to vote that he remain in prison for life? He is now in his 50′s and all of his ‘wildness’ is long gone.