« A must read -- Tommy Franks | Main | Comprehensive Mom Package v5.2 »

October 20, 2004

California Prop 66 - gutting the 3 Strikes Law

Nob Hill Rapist

California has had one of the strictest Three Stikes laws in the nation. This has earned it a certain amount of animosity and hostility from the usual apologists for convicted criminals. 60 Minutes II did a story highlighting a particular 3 strikes case in July 2003. (I remember this one because Dan Rather was at our courthouse filming some of this story). Of course the story was presented as this poor guy who is serving a 50 year sentence for stealing $150 worth of video tapes from a KMart. However, the story rarely delved into what this career criminal had been doing most of his life -- victimizing others. Think of Al Capone who's final downfall was being convicted of tax evasion, even as all the thuggery and murders he had committed were near impossible to prosecute. The three strikes law is a way for society to address career criminals.

The impetus behind the 3 Strikes Law was the infamous kidnapping and murder of Polly Klaas by career criminal Richard Allen Davis. It became unacceptable for someone to serve a few years here and a few years there, a long rolling list of crime and victims and continue to be let loose on an unsuspecting community to prey, yet again.

That is one trait all three-strikers share. They are predators.

What is it that the anti-strikers say? That it is "not fair" that some schlub be sentenced 25 years to life just because he "stole a piece of pizza?"

The "pizza" story has grown apocryphal in its numerous retellings. It seems "everyone" has heard of the poor guy serving a life's sentence for merely stealing a slice pizza. Mon dieu, Jacques! Have you ever hear of such a thing? In California you could be sent up le fleuve for getting caught stealing a piece of bread! How...how... Les Miserables!

Well, the actual case of Jerry Williams is just a tad different. And so is the reality of 3 Strikes Law compared to the perception.

Quite simply, the first two strikes must be felonies defined as "serious" or "violent." Murder, rape, robbery, gang crimes, felonies involving great bodily injury are all included in the state's designation of "serious" or "violent." The third strike, the felony that triggers the third strike prosecution, can be any felony. And while this still may seem "harsh" to some, what must be kept in mind is that prosecutors and judges have great leeway in looking over a defendant's record with the discretion to "strike a strike." When this happens, the defendant may be sentenced under a two-striker provision that doubles the normative sentence rather than triggering the 25 to life sentencing. Strikes also affect time served credits. For a non-strike felony, good-time credits can amount to 50% of time served. Under a strike conviction, 85% of time must be served.

What, in essence, the state of California is saying is that after two serious or violent felonies, you have either learned your lesson and will start being a productive member in society, or you will be designated a predator on your community and be removed from it -- maybe for the rest of your life. With the option to "strike a strike," there remains a great deal of discretion for those who may decide, after review, that the furtherance of justice demands forgoing the third strike.

Of course there are those that would say, even knowing this, they don't want a non-serious felony as the triggering event. They want all three strikes to be "serious" or "violent." I can understand and even respect such a position. However, that's not what Prop. 66 is promising. An insidious part of the proposition is the removal of six crimes from "serious" or "violent" felonies list.

Now, look at the list again and see the crimes that will no longer be consider "strikes", no longer considered "serious" or "violent" crimes.

Set fire to brush that burns down homes? No strike. If the fire harms anyone or kills them? No strike (unless the prosecution can prove there was an intent to harm the people through the setting of the fire).

A little more than a year ago, fires raged through Southern California. Many of them were set. My co-worker's father, a fireman, was out fighting fires, while his own home burned to the ground. My children's friends north of us had to evacuate from huge seething walls of fire that marched down the hills and into neighborhoods. My family readied to evacuate (we were lucky we did not get the call). The streets were thick with white ash, giving an eerie sense of snow falling from a sky burnt orange and angry from the smoke.

Under 66, causing such conflagration would no longer be considered "serious" or "violent." No strike here! People killed, burned alive in their car trying to flee this arson fire? People burned severely enough to spend months in the hospital? Sorry, GBI (great bodily injury) is no longer serious or violent, either. All in the interest of making sure no pizza-stealing Jean Valjeans are sentenced to Folsom by mustache-twirling prosecutors.

Now, take a look again at the last bullet. The GBI and how it applies to injury, even death, committed during a DUI. After all the years we have spent of moving the law and society's mindset to the place that driving under the influence is very serious and will be treated as the serious crime it is. Doesn't it seem just a little strange that suddenly causing death and injury while DUI is to be shuttled out of the "serious" or "violent" category?

Not really too strange when one considers just who is financing Prop. 66:

Jerry Keenan, who owns a Sacramento insurance company, has contributed more than $1.5 million to pay for the signature gatherers who helped qualify Proposition 66 for the November ballot. ...

In 1999, while intoxicated, Richard Keenan drove a Lexus about 20 miles over the speed limit with three passengers on a winding road in the Sierra foothills near Sacramento. His car crashed, killing two passengers and injuring the third. ...

"No one should be faced with the prospect of a doubled or 25-years-to-life sentence because of nonviolent acts, let alone accidental acts," he [Jerry Keenan] said.[emphasis added]


Daddy says, 'Don't worry son, I'll guy you a state initiative!' Isn't this fun? Daddy thinks son is serving too much in prison. A whole eight years and a strike on his record. Just too harsh for killing two other people. Perfectly understandable that daddy would bankroll a Proposition that will gut much of the 3 Strikes Law so sonny boy won't be so inconvenienced.

Did you know that this Proposition is retroactive to 1994? That's right. Ten years of cases,both second and third strikes that are going to suddenly be up for review and resentencing. Resentencings that will have to take place between 30 and 180 days if Prop 66 passes.

I walked into our file room at work and gazed, depressed, at the 25 plus boxes of three strike cases. I don't even want to think of the more recent years of three strike cases on the shelves or all the second striker cases or that our computer system only goes back to about mid-1997, every thing else being on a legacy system or card file. And if we can not get them all done in a timely manner, just who is going to be released upon the community we serve?

Even more important is the very frightening thought of the people who are going to be released either immediately or very shortly after the passage.

Be very afraid and take a look at these murderers, rapists and child molesters who have been so "unjustly convicted" under California's 3 strikes law.

Mr. Keenan, I'm sure you'll have no problem with them moving into your neighborhood?

cross-posted at redstate.org

Posted by Darleen at October 20, 2004 12:01 AM

Comments

I am appalled at the lack of information in this article. My husband was given a life sentence for a misdemeanor, not a felony. He was not a career criminal, he was recently diagnosed with a serious mental illness, the crime he committed and was convicted of was for burglary of an occupied building in 1990. He was sentenced to 27 to life in April of 2003 by a judge in San Diego, and you failed to report that there are many times that the judge does not use any descrepancy in the application of this law.All the judge did was disregard the recommendations of the mental health professionals who said that my husband was no danger to the community nor was he going to re-offend if given the proper outpatient treatment. My daughter is 6 years old and he is the only father she has ever known.Not to mention the bill for each and every felon in the state is at least $26,000 per year to house them. Your sense of justice is warped and all I ever asked was for fairness to be restored to the court system in California.How do I tell me daughter that Daddy committed a misdemeanor and that he won't be home until she is at least 30 years old? Get a grip on reality, this draconian law serves only the career politicians and the prison guards. Oh by the way , my husband is African-American, and this law is applied to minorities in a very disproportionate manner. Sincerely, Cynthia Johnson calirefugee@yahoo.com

Posted by: cynthia at October 25, 2004 10:38 AM

While I am sorry for your daughter, your story doesn't ring entirely complete.

The only way your husband was convicted of a 3rd strike that was a misdemeanor, is if that misdemeanor was the third or fourth or more conviction of the same offense. In those cases, the misdemeanor can be filed as a felony because it indicates the person has a serious problem. IE DUI's are misdemeanors, but upon committing a fourth one, it is filed as a felony.

I guess you didn't see the pictures of the murderers, rapists and child molesters that will be released upon 66's passage... just where is that disproportionately minority?

You trot out the usual misinformation on 3 strikes. Your husband was convicted of at least 2 serious felonies before the third. And if he has mental health professionals behind him, he can probably have the 3rd strike reversed on appeal. What? Your husband didn't take advantage of a Romero hearing?

What fairness is there in letting Frank Parnell out to prey on more children? Do you want him trying to purchase YOUR daughter? How about the Nob Hill rapist? Want him in a half-way house in YOUR neighborhood.

M'am, you met and married a felon and chose to make a baby with him regardless of his history and his continuing criminal behavior. It is not MY sense of justice that is warped.

Posted by: Darleen at October 25, 2004 12:19 PM

i am afraid, Darlene that it appears that you have limited, or perhaps "selective" experience with the criminal justice system. Under california law a person w/ any prior felony conviction, regardless if serious or not, when arrested for petty theft, normally a misdemeanor will be charged under section 666 of the penal code, "petty theft with a prior felony conviction", which is a felony and then have the third or second strike applied. This has been a common occurance in the past. If you feel life in prison is justified for petty theft than perhaps you might consider moving to Iran where they just dismember petty thieves and execute adulterers and women who speak their opinions like yourself.

Posted by: charles aydelotte at October 28, 2004 08:10 AM

Charles

You conveniently sidestep everything I've written. As I said before, I would have no problem ... indeed all the DDA's I work with would have NO PROBLEM, if the Proposition was to make the third strike a "serious" or "violent" felony.

Proposition 66 does no such thing. It is a scam for Keenan to get his son out of prison and to release approximately 26,000 2nd and 3rd strikers into OUR communities.

Did anyone get a strike due to petty theft with priors? You, yourself admit it was EARLY in the 3 strikes law era (1994) that such things happened. AND THAT IS TRUE ... during the shake out of how this was to get underway, there were cases of overzealousness.

Now, how many are happening today? Comeon, give me a recent case, Charles. Or even better. Give me a case of someone currently incarcerated over the scenario you just named.

It does not happen. And many of the early cases have been resentenced after appeals and Romero motions.

FYI, I have worked at a DA office for almost 7 years. What happened in the early days of 3 strikes is little different than what happened in the early days of Proposition 36 (PC1210.1). The law is suddenly on the books and everyone is scrambling around trying to figure just how in the hell we are going to implement it.

Why don't you address the FACT that Frank Parnell will be released under 66? Or the FACT that the next serial murderer that is caught under 66..regardless of how many people s/he has murdered, will ONLY GET ONE STRIKE upon conviction. Hillside Stranger Ramirez murdered 14 people ... under 66 he would have only ONE strike, not 14.

And what is it about removing gang crimes from strikable offenses you find laudable? Or designating felonies involving GBI as non-strikes?

If you feel 66 is so great, shall we open a half-way house for released rapists and child molesters next to yours?

Posted by: Darleen at October 28, 2004 06:02 PM

Let me start by thanking you for responding to my post. I will try to address some of your response in order. First a petty with a prior could not be used as a prior strike enhancement, however a prior felony conviction is at the present time used to elevate a misdemeanor petty theft to a felony ie: 666pc and then if the offender had say 2 prior serious felonies, say 2 residential burglaries then that person is eligible for a third strike. I will agree that what usually happens now is a plea bargain is usually offered for between 3 to as much as 8 years to avoid implementation of the third strike, as opposed to what was happening when all such cases got 25 to life. I do not have enough information on Frank Parnell to comment other than I have no doubt that no change in the law is without compromise, I am sure that a few quite undeserving will get some benefit, however what about the vast number of undeserving individuals that are getting 25 to life or forced into ridiculous sentencing agrements to avoid 3 strikes? As far as serial killers such as Richard Ramirez, as you mentioned are concerned, I feel this is a little ridiculous as multiple murderers such as Richard Ramirez are serving multiple life sentences and will never be released so if your argument is correct who would be concerned with how many stikes we could access to someone serving multiple life sentences? The biggest problem is while I have no idea how you accessed "justice" as a DA, I feel by your comments you are an intelligent person, there are way to many DA's out there that don't feel justice is served unless the absolute maximum application of the law is applied. While I agree with some of your points, I am involved with drug and alcohol rehab, and see minor drug offenders get very harse sentences for petty theft and small drug possesions because of prior burglary convictions and the like. I have absolutely no use for child molestors personally,but we must make sure we dont go overboard locking everyone up and throwing away the key. I have read 65% of those incarcerated under 3 strikes are for non-violent offenses. I also feel that some offenses should be removed from the "serious" list. First off violent offenders and sexual predators should mean just that, not burglars with no one home, and others who had no intention of violence such as drunk drivers. Not to say people who are not intending to, but do inflict death or great bodily such as drunk drivers should not have to pay a heavy price as they should, but 25 to life? To my knowlege niether of the 2 previous govenors grant any parole on a 25 to life sentence thus make the sentence life without in pratical application. How many high speed chases that result in injury or death are a result of less serious offenders having "nothing to lose"? What are the financial burdens on the taxpayers for all this unnecessary incarceration for minor offenders? I also understand the distain for gang members but if the crime isnt violent or sexually based assaults do young offenders deserve life for just being a gang member? While maybe not perfect in every way we need sentencing reform in California, just as obviously the 3rd strike law was not perfect. I will be looking forward to your reply.

Posted by: charles aydelotte at October 29, 2004 09:15 AM

Charles

This is where you've bought into the disinformation from Keenan and his Prop 66. A DUI with GBI is NOT 25 yrs to life, but it IS a strike. And do not, I mean DO NOT trot out that a DUI didn't intend to maim, or kill. THEY CHOSE TO DRINK AND DRIVE.

Keenan's son KILLED TWO and maimed another, all a strike did was double his sentence from FOUR YEARS to 8... and he has to serve 85% instead of 50% (good time credits).

Did you NOT read what I wrote about this?

Even if I accepted your 65% figure, 100% of 3rd strikers have AT LEAST two serious and violent felony strikes. Indeed, the only reason the 3rd is given is because these are people with rap sheets a mile long.

Burglary, regardless if someone is home or not, should be a strike. THEY ARE INVADING YOUR HOME and you are probably damn lucky you're not there when they are.

Frank Parnell is a rather well known case, do google it. Within a short time of his release from prison after serving time for kidnapping and child molestation (he kidnapped 7 y/o Steve Staynor..kept him for 8 years, soddomizing him and abusing him..when he kidnapped a 5 y/o Steve took the boy and escaped) Parnell was caught trying to purchase a 4 y/o boy for $500.

All a plea bargain under 2nd strike guidelines does is double the sentence and make it 85% serve time.

CA doesn't treat addicts with jail. We have three different court supervised drug rehab programs, with 2 of them where successful probation allows them to come to court and have their case dismissed. Diversion (PC1000), Proposition 36 (PC1210.1), and Drug Court.

There is not one 3 striker case file I have had my hands on in the last 6+ years where the perp didn't have years of run ins with the law. Not two felonies, but dozens of them.

Proposition 66 is VERY BAD LAW. Commit arson for $$$ and someone :::oops::: dies? No strike. A gangbanger beats someone up while threatening them to get out of town or be killed? A felony, but no strike... as GBI, gang or criminal threats are no longer, under 66, "serious" or "violent".

Posted by: Darleen at October 29, 2004 12:59 PM

Okay i think that there should be some sort of common ground that we can come to. my husband is in prison for something that yes he did do however the situation does not deserve the punishment. He to had a chemical inbalance and found himself depressed and only way of dealing with it was doing illigal substance. now he has to do 3 years for a simple posession. i think it is obsered. why dont we as a group try to help people like him who are good people but have never had the resorces or money to get proper help. everyone is always ina hurry to group criminals together rather then taking the time to see people as individuals. i hope that prop 66 goes through i am a suporter of it. and if all these bad people will be relased well if they are that bad im sure it wont take them long to go right back into the system. moniter and watch them useing the paroll system but let the ones who are in need of help get it.

Posted by: shannon at October 29, 2004 03:47 PM

Shannon

Why is he doing 3 State Prison years for "simple" possession? Today is Friday... meaning the morning session of one of our biggest departments is Drug Court .. where those under its supervision show up to present their latest clean test. The afternoon is PC1000 (Diversion) and Prop 36. Both are programs dealing with NO JAIL but rehab.

Even these people, who may get picked up on a under the influence, or simple possession, go to the judge and if its a first or second drug related VOP (violation of parole) they are REINSTATED into the program and given more chances. Even a revocation and kicking out of these programs sends them to COUNTY jail..and an order to complete the Inroads program (in jail rehab program).

MERE ADDICTS are not sent to State prison whenever possible.

This is really chilling .. you say

if they are that bad im sure it wont take them long to go right back into the system.

Are you offering up your mom to be raped? You brother to be murdered? Your child to be molested?

That was a pretty f**king indecent statement on your part and I'm leaving it up so people can see the real "compassion" of those trying to gut the 3 strikes law.

Posted by: Darleen at October 29, 2004 07:31 PM

BTW Charles? If you are reading.

I was posting a file today on a 2nd striker. I decided to look at his rap sheet.

It is 12 pages long going back to 1982.

Wow, just an innocent guy caught up in an evil, draconian law, eh?

Posted by: Darleen at October 29, 2004 07:33 PM

Well,
I am shocked by your coment. although you may not agree with my decition and may the reality be harsh it is still my choice as to what side im in favor of.there is no need to be rude or vogar in responding. it is hot heads like your self that i am refering to in my last comment that make hot headed dicissions. and who suffers the common man. im not saying that the harsh criminals shoukld be released but i do feel that there are a many of addics who dont know how to live that need help are suffering do to "hot headedness" as for offering up anyone to be hurt in any kind of way i wouldnt want that for my mom brother sister nor for yours either. this is america we have the intelagance to find a sulution why dont we quit pointing the finger and the ones with all the power do something about this. it is in my power to vote for a cause that i feel is doing more good then harm as it is yours to vote aginst this cause. Thats the great thing about america. So cool your pants and come up with something to help insted of fighting it.

Posted by: shannon at October 30, 2004 11:51 AM

Shannon

What did you miss about my recitation of what California already does with THREE, count 'em, THREE drug rehab programs in lieu of jail or prison?

You merely "feel" 3 strikes does more harm than good, but you cannot back that up with any facts. I have shown that addicts are only sent to jail as a last resort (where they can do an inprison rehab program like Inroads) and are only sent to State Prison if they are also engaging in dangerous illegal behaviors that violate the rights of others.

As I have stated before, every 3rd striker has at least two serious or violent felonies on their record. Prop 66 is going to let 26,000 of these people unto the streets of California.

Why do you ignore this obvious danger? What FACTS do you have to offer in rebuttal?

Posted by: Darleen at October 30, 2004 01:32 PM

people like mr. parnell are why guys like me arent cops, I think he might try to escape while in my custody and suffer a fatal encounter. One thing I think we agree on is the wording on 3 strikes should be ammended to focus on "child molesters" and the like, that it was intended for. Lets end extreme penalties for petty crimes, and focus on these cases. The details we may disagree on, I guess the voters will speak one way or the other. thanx 4 your replies

Posted by: charles aydelotte at October 30, 2004 06:44 PM

Darleen,

I am in agreeance with you that all career criminals must face the penalty for their actions. However, you do fail to address a couple of things regarding Proposition 66. First, Proposition 66 is NOT only a reform of the Three Strikes law, it is also a Child Protection Act.

Under Proposition 66, the Child Protection Act INCREASES sentencing of sexual predators to 6, 8 or 12 years instead of the 3, 6 or 8 years they do currently receive. Not to mention the fact that if it is their second offense they can receive 25 to life. In addition, if it is their first offense where the victim is ten and under they can receive 25 to life.

Now back to the three strikes issue. You have misrepresented some items.

First, now while it is true that the three strikes extended from the Polly Klaas case, Polly Klaas' own grandfather is one of the primary supporters of the three strikes amendment. Mr. Klaas himself stated that the three strikes law he was told about back then and how it would be used is not happening today. Mr. Klaas believes that this amendment should happen and that the law should only apply to serious and violent felonies.

Second, murder charges (if convicted) carries a sentencing term of 25 to life. Nothing more and nothing less. So, if I had one strike for a violent or serious felony and then I committed murder OR if I had two strikes for a violent or serious felony and committed murder, I receive a sentence of 25 years to life right off the bat(that is of course if the DA does not plead me out, like they sometimes do) regardless of how many strikes I have. True enough my sentence will be enhanced but the amendment to the three strikes law does not change this.

Third, a strike can be taken from a juvenille record if the serious or violent felony was done when the person was sixteen years old. Thus, if I am 30 and commit a serious or violent felony, my act as a minor is considred my 1st strike, my act as a 30 year old is then considered my 2nd strike and if at 40 I need to steal that slice of pizza that will be my 3rd strike. By my calculations, I waited 14 years before I receiving my 2nd strike and then 10 years before my 3rd yet I am still considered a career criminal. Wow!!!

Which brings me to my fourth issue. While it is true that judges have the right and opportunity to strike a strike, in most cases they rarely do. It is a touchy subject which most judges do not want to get into. (It was a San Diego Superior Court judge who was the first judge to "strike a strike" and that was a rare event. Even then, the prosecution brought the matter before the Court of Appeals and if I am correct the Supreme Court. It was only then that a judge obtain the discretion to strike a strike. Before this, the decision was solely for the prosecution.) In any event, you forgot to mention that even in a case where a judge has decided to strike a strike, the District Attorney's Office spends more tax dollars to take the case to the Court of Appeals in order to try and have the judge's decision reversed.

Now, for whatever reason Jerry Keenan decided to help fund Proposition 66 is his own decision. So what if he has a son that did something and has to serve some time for it. Whatever Mr. Keenan's reasons are, you should not chastise him for his own actions. If it was your child you would do the same!!!

Also, since you want to bring up who is funding what, who do you think is funding the measure against the three strikes law and what do you think their reasoning is.

Now as for the the three strikes amendment being retroactive to 1994. It is only retroactive to 1994 because that was when the three strikes law first passed. We voted on in 1994 therefore, the amendment has to be retroactive to 1994 to be fair. As you said yourself, in the beginning when the law first passed, the three strikes law was not used properly.

Back to your Parnell case. The Child Protection Act will cover those convicted of committing sexual acts against minors. Those charged and convicted will receive stiffer sentences as well as therapy while incarcerated.

Now I reiterate that I am a firm believer in the if you do the crime you should do the time philosophy, but not 25 to life for stealing a slice of pizza because I was starving and/or stealing videotapes to make sure my children have a good Christmas.

Posted by: Christine at November 1, 2004 11:01 AM

Christine

The so-called "sexual predator" enhancement is a sop, since many crimes against children will be dropped as "serious" or "violent" crimes. Child pornography will not longer be eligible as a strike, nor will child abuse (PC273A), nor sexual battery (PC243.4), nor pimping or pandering a minor (PC266), nor stalking or even threatening to kill a child will be a eligible as a strike.

Prop 66 is again offering open season to child predators like Frank Parnell.

And in talking with my CAC attorneys, at most the so-called "enhancement" will in actuality be about 8 months, since these crimes will not longer be considered strikes to be served at 85% of sentence, but as regular felonies to be served at 50% of sentence.

Wow, Keenan is getting such a bargain for his son at the expense of California's kids ...

I don't know what makes you think "murder" is always 25 to life. Sentencing guidelines vary depending on the charges, ehancements and after conviction or pleading, the probation report. 2nd degree murder can be only 15 years and a non-strike, which means with 1 for 1 credits for time served. I just posted a case where a man, angry with a family member at a family birthday party, stabbed and killed his cousin. He was sentenced to 16 years SP. He'll be out in 8. And his cousin will still be dead.

And will you get of the PIZZA MYTH... IT NEVER HAPPENED. The man, Jerry Williams, was sentenced to SIX years and is already OUT. 2nd strike ONLY DOUBLES THE SENTENCE AND REQUIRES 85% TIME SERVED.

Frank Parnell WILL GET OUT if 66 passes. His 3rd strike, trying to PURCHASE A CHILD, will no longer be a strikeable felony.

Isn't this fun? If 66 passes, we have a new California Lottery...whose child will be the first victim of released felons?

Won't you and the rest of the supporters of 66 feel proud?

Posted by: Darleen at November 1, 2004 05:34 PM

My ancestors moved to California during the Gold Rush. I was born and raised in the State. I moved away with my job and returned after my retirement a couple of years ago (30 years later). What a difference! I've been coached, "Don't look at those people!", or "Lock your door and look straight ahead!", or when a group of young men were shouting words that would make a sailor blush, "Don't say anything!"

Then I see Prop 66. There is an issue about the freedom of three-time felons! People, it is my observation that there is an issue of freedom of all law abiding people on the streets of this state. You should be concerned about your rights, not the rights of those who have been convicted three or more times! When I was growing up in this state, you could leave your car unlocked, or leave your house unlocked, and nothing would happen. Young people didn't misbehave because their parents would discipline them. Something is terribly wrong in California.

Where are these "misunderstood" people going to go when they are released from prison? If you voted Yes for 66, I hope they move next door to you. Maybe they can help by babysitting your children, or watching your house for you when you go out.

The DAs and their staffs have an incredible task ahead trying to sort out a mess if 66 passes. What about all the future victims of these people? Is Mr. Keenan going to console and compensate them? It would be a good idea if each and every one of them made a personal visit to Mr. Keenan to discuss why he put the entire State at risk to free his son.

Mr. Keenan, your son caused the death of two people, AND he had warnings by his prior convictions. It's not that he wasn't on notice. I understand if you feel guilty for not being able to help him before the wreck, but the current law protects all the people. I know your son would do anything to relive the day of the accident and change things. I'm sure he has many good qualities, but this is a good law. I hope you are able to live with the consequences if Prop 66 passes. There will be a lot of violence and a lot of grief that otherwise would not have been.

As I write this, the yes vote on Prop 66 is slightly ahead of the no vote. If it passes, I'm going to consider leaving the State. People...what are you thinking!

Posted by: Alan at November 3, 2004 12:26 AM

Well, all I have to say is, why can't a new law, just for rapist, child molesters and murders be written?
And also, what ever happen to "NO EXPO FACTO LAW?"
I know a story of a guy who only had one Serious Offense years before 1994; he robbed a home that was inhabited, no gun, or weapon. Was sentenced, served his time, was put on parole. Was later brought in because he fit an MO, of a robbery one day, while still on parole. They asked him for a pee test, and he did not pass, he had smoked a joint that day. So, now he was resentenced again for violation of parole, to eight years. He gets out, living his life, working, and yes still addicted to drugs, because this state didn't recognize a drug addict, I guess? So he is at a friends house, this friend lets him drive his truck, the friend a few hours later calls, the police saying his truck was stolen. Well, this friend was in court but never put on the stand, so this "GUY" was never faced by his accuser. The year now is 1995, in a small San Bernardino County Court house. This guy is made example of, an example of this new three strikes law. They give him 52 years, because like you said, he had a mile long rap sheet, going back to the age of 12. See his record was not to be closed at the age of 18, a judge ordered that. But from the age of 18, he had one Burglary; he was 17 at the time, one bad pee test, and a hearsay accusation. His Third Strike. Yup another "BIG" time criminal, with a drug habit.
Now if your right about them turning things around for guys like this that was made examples of. Give me a name of a lawyer who can help him, he doesn't need another court appointed one, we can already see where that got him.

Posted by: Larinda at November 10, 2004 11:07 AM

Larinda

Look here.

The only juvenile strikes allowed are violent ones..ie rape/murder. In fact, prop 66 was going to removed attempted rape as a juvenile strike.

If you don't want a Public Defender, then ask the court to assign someone from Westend Defenders (when PD's are excused from the case due to conflicts).

How come the def never asked for PC1000 or Drug Court?

Something is not making any sense here.

Posted by: Darleen at November 10, 2004 12:54 PM

please give me some inpute to why i would want to vote no on prop 66

Posted by: anna at November 16, 2004 11:36 AM

This whole situation concerns me. My husband is now looking at a third strike for a $10.00 issue that is such a joke it could cost our family everything we have tried to establish over the last 3 1/2 yrs. The problem is, the 3rd strike law was rushed in so fast out of desperation for any kind of answer to a problem, that no one took the time to clarify anything. Does anyone realize that there are approximately 4200 inmates in California that are serving a 3rd strike misdemeanor sentence and it costs approx. 26k per year to house them. Do you understand that that is roughly 110,000,000.00 million dollars per year and this state is b--ching about how broke we are, not to mention the average correctional officer is pulling in roughly 40k to 80k per year to babysit. Our police officers and fireman are putting their lives on the line daily and they don't even come close to that kind of payroll check. We all know that when you work for the state of Ca. you don't really have to work to pull in a good paycheck. What a joke this state is. My husband did 15 yrs. on a 27 year term for an issue that happened while in prison(a gang related incident). Since then he has had the opportunity to grow up(he was 22 when it happened)but yet has to register 290. He had a prior felony charge so now looks at three strikes over a non-violent crime because someone we know is pissed off at us. What a way to get back at someone. Well, it's your tax money and mine that has to be spent on something so sick. The sad thing is, is that any D.A would probably let it go over 10.00 but when you're talking about someone who has to register were talking a whole new ball game. They feel that it is their opportunity to get another offender off of the street. What a shame!!!! The sad thing is is that his offense wasn't even against any women or children, it was against a homosexual while in prison and he got caught up in a bad situation and there were alot of people involved. (don't judge-just try to understand)(he who is w/out sin cast the first stone). My father was a police officer in Sacramento as I was growing up, half of my family are correctional officers and the other half work for the sheriffs dept. I have many friends that work in corrections and do you know what the disturbing thing is? They feel the same way I do about the 3rd strike law. Let's seriously re-write this law the way it should have been witten in the first place and lets save 110 million dollars a year and actually do some rehabilitating and educating so these guys have an opportunity to do something different besides become a statistic. You should have voted No on 66 because it was the humane thing to do. Remember that everyone didn't have the opportunity to grow up in the suburbs- desperate people do desperate things( like stealing a 2.50 loaf of bread for his kids, now sliding through his 8th yr. on a 25 yr sentence) Instead of fighting against it, use your time and angry energy and help refine it. (P.S.- the 290 registration law also needs to be re-defined.)

Posted by: desperate wife at November 22, 2004 09:48 PM

DW:

Um... your husband is registered under PC290?

That's Megan's Law, folks. People who are registered sex offenders.

So the husband is a registered sex offender AND has had gang issues.

What a prince.

Remember, the discretion on whether or not the third strike really COUNTS as a strike is with the judge or DA. You husband could even have his attorney explore just what a sentence would be if he pled directly to the court over the People's objection.

Again. Let me repeat.... if Prop. 66 had dealt JUST WITH making the 3rd strike exactly the same as the first two, it would have passed because even DDA's and law enforcement would have backed it.

But when the a**holes tried to sneak through taking gang crime, sex crimes and death/injury during a DUI off the table THAT when too far.

Posted by: Darleen at November 23, 2004 06:37 AM

I'm sorry, but no one should have to go to prison 25 to life for petty theft. Especially when their prior offenses were years ago. I'm sure that alot of prisoners would not have commited their serious or violent felonies 20 years ago if they knew it would be "a strike" after 1994.

My boyfriend is currently in prison for a low term of 32 months, serving 85% of the sentence. The D.A was looking to strike him out for something he did in 1988, when he was 17 years old. The charge was commercial burglary in Florida. After about 10 court continuances, the D.A finally dismissed the strike, since it's not even a "strikeable offense". The other things he had on his record were a residential burglary in 1994 and grand theft in 1998. He served his time for these prior offenses. He got off pretty lucky this time. His current conviction was for petty theft w/ priors. I don't think he would've deserved 25 to life, unless he was constantly hurting other people/children. He knows what he did was wrong and admits he was a wild child, but that still does not constitute spending the rest of his life in prison. People are doing less time for child molestation, rape, child abuse, manslaughter, gang violence, and kidnapping. Since when is thievery worse than those crimes?


Traditionally, the length of a prison sentence was not subject to scrutiny under the clause, regardless of the crime for which the sentence was imposed. It was not until the case of Solem v. Helm (1983) that the Supreme Court held that incarceration, standing alone, could constitute cruel and unusual punishment if it was "disproportionate" in duration with respect to the offense. The Court outlined three factors that were to be considered in determining if the sentence is excessive: "(i) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty; (ii) the sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction; and (iii) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions." The Court held that under the circumstances of the case before it and the factors to be considered, a sentence of life imprisonment without parole for cashing a $100 check on a closed account was cruel and unusual punishment.

Posted by: jennifer at February 7, 2005 10:57 PM

Why don't you keep it real with the people. Ok, first off, you know like I know life is hard and sometimes hardtimes may force one to do hard things. wheather right or wronge, its reality. Its also called survival. By know means do I condone child molesters or violent crimes, not criminals but crimes, because even a violent criminal can turn his life around, shit they do every day. So what you saying, mess up 3 times even real bad and your life is over? I'm sure you messed up a lot as a kid and then was punished accordilly. Would it would have been right to just get rid of you, or take your life away after the 3rd time you messed up serriously? And please stop being so dramatic. You know like I know if a person gets convicted of murder or brutal serial killings his chances of ever seeing day light is slim ta none, with or without 3 strikes. So quit acting like if there was no 3 strike law then you could just go gun hold and buckwild without no reprocausion. And of course we hate child predators, THAT WAS WHY WE VOTED THE LAW INTO AFFECT IN THE FIRST PLACE! But like everything else in the u.s. That has to do with our goverment, WE THE PEOPLE WERE DECIEVED!!!! Now if you're a da, ex d.a., or any type of law enforcment, then you know like I know that there's more people in prison sentence under the 3 strike law for bullshit then real shit. And as for the child preditors, we let them out every day. They get 4 and 5 chances to harm and take away our kids innocence before our goverment finally does something drastic and throw away the key with theese individuals, like they should have done apond the first conviction. But know, most child molesters have release dates. Doing time in some ritzy level one, minimum security prison, in protective custody. Keep it real with the people, if your gonna educate them, don't george bush em! But I bet you're one of those quick to judge, and point a finger at the next man while peaking over his fence, from the outside looking in talking shit. Thinking everybody that goes to prison belongs in prison. Like we're not human beings. EVERYONE DESERVES A CHANCE TO CHANGE THERE LIFE AND MOVE ON! But 3 stikes feels differently!

Posted by: simply discusted at March 14, 2005 05:38 PM

know like I know that there's more people in prison sentence under the 3 strike law for bullshit then real shit.

You're wrong. And thank god the people of CA woke up to that fact before sociopathic gangbangers, child molesters and career criminals were wholesale released back into society.

Posted by: Darleen at March 14, 2005 05:53 PM

you know what you say there are 3 count them 3 drug programs well you know what not everyone gets in those programs and simple possession holds 16 months low term 2 years mid term and 3 years high term and those double with prior strikes and you do 85% of your time now tell shannon again shes indecent her husband has a drug problem so if a program is given to all offenders which is bullshit then give her husband one your a da right

Posted by: jen at April 18, 2005 03:45 PM

The three strikes law is unprodutive because it isn't effective in lowering the rate of crime, it is extremely expensive, and it specifically targets minorities.

According to FBI statistics, California's crime rate has decreased by twice the national average since voters approved the three strikes law in 1994. However, it is proven that there is little link between the use of three strikes, and declines in crime. A prison advocacy group named the Sentencing Project recently carried out a study, that found the increase in people incarcerated was not caused by a growth in crime. Instead, it was a direct result of the more penalizing laws implemented by Congress and sate legislatures as a part of the movement to get "tough on crime."

Aside from three strikes having limited contribution to the decreasing crime rates, three strikes causes many people to get unfair sentencing, and to get sentenced for long periods of time for insignificant crimes. Sixty-five percent of the people convicted for three strikes are drug-related offenses. Yet, three strikes has not prevented any more drug crimes and has not decreased the amount of drug-related crimes either.
There are better alternatives, rather than solely sending people to prison for a life time. There are preventative programs that focus on the community, school, family and employment. In addition there are rehabilitation and restorative justice programs that can also be used to decrease crime.

Moreover, taxpayers are unfairly supporting many people who are unjustly in prison and those who guard them. The costs are simply too much for the trivial benefits of this law. Besides the added expenditure, this form of prosecution and incarceration is causing the inevitable overpopulation pressure on the overburdened prisons. Penitentaries are so crowded that some don't have any more cells for the inmates. Consequently, they have to bunk outside of the cells in a sort of lobby. Not only is it dangerous for the corrections officers but also for the inmates themselves.

As for this law targeting minorities, statistics are dumbfounding. African Americans are imprisoned for life under three strikes at an astonishing twelve times the rate of whites. In addition, Hispanics are convicted for second, and third strikes at the rate of SEVENTY percent highter than whites.

The point is three strikes costs too much, does too little, and targets minorities in particular. This law has gotten out of hand and it should be modified. The sentence should be balanced for the crime committed.

As for what you argue Ms. Darlene, with all due respect, I feel you speak with great cynicism and sarcasm, you also sound very biased. This sounds like more of a personal issue for you, rather than professional. I understand you hold a position in law therefore you are able to "throw out" some legal terms and codes at the people who try and counter-argue your points. At any rate, I understand the benefits of this law but like I stated earlier it's benefits do not exceed it's flaws and it is simply not worth it.

Posted by: Karla at May 20, 2005 03:47 PM

My son was grabbed by his teacher (Age 15) and then told the teacher let's take it outside. He went to school security and pictures were taken of marks on his neck. I could not afford an attorney - He now has a strikable felony conviction for terrorist threat. He now is pursing a college education and we live in fear of 3 strikes. I think there are many things to consider to further such laws. Our fate is usually decided outside the courtroom, where attornies bargain for people's lives while playing golf and self help sites are lost in jargon

Posted by: jasmine at May 26, 2005 12:59 PM

my wife cynitha smith x wife in may 2004 was busted with drugs and a pc1000 class she hasent gone to a single class yet she says its a joke i belive her cynthia smith has a anger manigement class algo and has never went why dosent the system work!

Posted by: somfme at July 29, 2005 01:36 PM