Fallout of Three Strikes
Erwin Chemerinsky’s critique of California’s three-strikes law is well taken (“3 Strikes: Cruel, Unusual and Unfair,” Commentary, March 10). It touches on an even wider issue: the Legislature’s usurping the duty of judges to judge.
A few years ago I was foreman of a jury that sent a 19-year-old boy to prison for life, guilty of first-degree murder. He hadn’t even been present at the shooting. He didn’t know it had happened until his friend ran back to the car. But the Legislature has decreed that an accessory before the fact is as guilty as the triggerman.
The man who did the shooting had told our defendant to stop the car. He was going to “jack,” meaning rob, a shop around the corner. Our defendant, obviously dominated by his older friend, didn’t try to stop him. That made him an accessory. The Legislature has decreed that life imprisonment is required for a person guilty of first-degree murder. So a young man who probably should have spent 30 days in the county jail for extremely poor judgment is instead a lifer. Under the law as defined in our instructions, we had no choice but to find him guilty.
The judge should have had the prerogative of pronouncing a reasonable sentence. But he had no choice either. That sort of thing must be happening almost daily under “three strikes” and other laws that essentially remove judging from the judges. Reason and fairness suggest that these superbly trained men and women should be given back the right to do what they’re paid to do: judge each case according to its merits.
Harrison Stephens
Claremont
*
Should we really differentiate between petty theft and any other crime? A person who commits a crime, any crime, is a criminal. Not only are the laws that are to be followed spelled out clearly for these people, they get two additional “freebies,” if you will, on top of that. How many chances should a criminal get before he is not allowed to harm the community anymore?
Anthony C. Wilson
Redondo Beach
*
Chemerinsky is again whining about the unfairness of California’s three-strikes law. The law professor obviously feels that a criminal with two major crime convictions and just one minor one should get only a slap on the wrist for the last one and then get released in a relatively short period so he can continue preying on society. Wake up and smell the felonies, professor! California’s three-strikes law is a way of leveling the playing field. That third strike is not only for the first two but for all the others we don’t know about.
Jack Berkus
Playa del Rey
*
Professor Chemerinsky makes a good case that the three-strikes law is cruel, unusual and unfair. It seems clear that the law will never change without an initiative being passed.
The unknown factor is how many second-strike felons leave the state to avoid the third strike. My guess is that it is in the hundreds if not thousands, especially after the recent Supreme Court ruling. Career criminals should take notice. Meanwhile, the public is saddled with paying millions to incarcerate many who should probably not be in jail on a long-term basis.
Bob Kerber
Oceanside