3 Strikes Law

Pundits in the media and academia, including The Times, predictably continue to bemoan the "three strikes and you're out" law, most recently by inferring that its financial costs are ruining Los Angeles County and other local governments (editorial, Dec. 11). In lamenting the cost of ending "revolving-door justice," however, The Times inaccurately described the provisions of this law as follows: "Defendants convicted of a third felony face prison terms from 25 years to life. Second felony convictions carry double the usual sentence."

Re "Three-Strikes Law Is Missing the Mark," Commentary, Aug. 25: Joe Klaas talks about the economic costs of the three-strikes law. If the law had been in force before his granddaughter was killed, would he have been willing to pay the incarceration costs in order to keep her alive? I would. To keep my son less exposed to criminals, you bet! The article states it costs over $500,000 to keep a criminal in jail for his lifetime. What would be the cost in human misery and property if the same career criminal were allowed to continue his lifestyle?

After a cordial meeting, the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. and Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti agreed Thursday to disagree about the value and impact of the state's "three strikes" law. After the 90-minute meeting in his office, Garcetti reaffirmed his support for the 1994 law, which mandates a sentence of 25 years to life in prison for a third felony conviction. He called it "a good law and a fair law." In a separate news conference, Jackson called the law unjust and an "expensive non-remedy" for crime.

Every $1 spent to keep California criminals behind bars saves taxpayers as much as $2.80, according to a conservative think tank. A study released this week by the Pacific Research Institute of Public Policy claimed that California does not incarcerate enough criminals and doesn't keep them behind bars long enough. The study suggests that 'three strikes' and similar measures that impose longer sentences will yield substantial savings, say the authors, Steven Hayward and Lance T. Izumi.

A Lake View Terrace man who snatched a purse from a woman in front of a grocery store in Pacoima was convicted of robbery this week and sentenced to life in prison under the state's new "three strikes" law. Prior convictions for a residential burglary in 1987 and a robbery in 1989 made Terry Evans, 32, liable for the harsher sentence, according to Deputy Dist. Atty. Robert Dver.

In the first local challenge to the "three strikes" law, the Orange County Public Defender's Office claimed Friday that that the new legislation unfairly punishes defendants for past convictions. Only convictions racked up after the law went into affect last month should be counted as strikes, said Deputy Public Defender Kevin J. Phillips, who helped formulate the challenge that takes aims at the heart of the legislation. "You can't just grandfather these (prior convictions) in," Phillips said.

Re "3-Strikes Sentence Is Ruled Cruel," Nov. 3: My praise to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for having the intelligence and sense of justice to rule that a theft of videos did not warrant a third-strike sentence of 50 years, determining that it was cruel and unusual punishment and did not fit the crime. (He had no prior violent crimes.) As we all know, the three-strikes law was voted into law to keep violent repeat offenders in prison for many years, not drug addicts and petty thieves.

California's "three strikes" law is proving to be tough not just on repeat offenders, but on Los Angeles County's criminal justice system as well, according to a comprehensive report on the impact of the popular voter-approved law released Wednesday.