Initiative Fight Puts Focus on Felons

Half a dozen tombstone-shaped placards stood on easels at the front of a South Los Angeles meeting hall this month, each bearing the photo of a convict incarcerated under the state’s 1994 three-strikes law.

Filling the row of folding chairs and standing in the aisles were community activists, relatives of convicted felons and a few repeat offenders who had served their time. They were all here to make their case for Proposition 66, which would greatly reduce the number of felons eligible for sentencing under three strikes.

“Buried Alive” read the posters, with the prisoners’ time served written like life spans on grave markers. The caption on a grainy photo of one young man read: “Brian Smith received 25 years to life for ‘aiding’ a shoplifting.”

The fight over three strikes is a battle of competing horror stories -- of punishments that don’t fit the crime versus the toll exacted by career criminals.

In Santa Barbara last week, those opposing changes to California’s mandatory sentencing requirements marshaled their own resources, displaying mug shots of third-strikers who would be eligible for reduced sentences.

One was of Steve Matthews, a convicted murderer who also raped his mother. He was sentenced as a third-striker when he was caught with two deadly weapons, including a 2-foot-long machete etched with an antigay slur.

“Under Proposition 66, Mr. Matthews’ sentence would be reduced to a maximum of three years,” opponents said in a news release distributed at the event. “Because of time served and ‘good time’ credits, he would be eligible for release in early 2005.”

On a stand in front of the massive wooden gates of Santa Barbara’s courthouse, Matthews’ image stared back at a handful of TV cameras and reporters. The sign on the easel said: “Would be released back into Los Angeles County.”

The “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law was considered unlikely to gain much support when it was proposed more than a decade ago. But in 1994, in the aftermath of the kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas in Petaluma, scores of politicians backed the measure, which then-Gov. Pete Wilson signed into law, and voters ratified it by a ratio of 3 to 1.

Under the law, second-strikers -- those with two serious or violent felonies on their record -- must serve 80% of their sentence before being considered for parole. A third conviction, or strike, for a less serious felony can trigger a sentence of 25 years to life.

Now, many Californians appear inclined to reconsider.

A Field Poll taken last month found nearly seven in 10 likely California voters said they would vote to change the law, with the numbers for both Republicans and Democrats well above the threshold for passage.

The issue has divided the Klaas family, with Polly’s father, Marc Klaas, campaigning against Proposition 66, and her grandfather, Joe Klaas, one of the leaders of the effort to change the law.

Marc Klaas has said he believes the law rightfully imprisons people who have committed serious or violent felonies in the past and continue to break the law. Joe Klaas has said he never wanted people to be sent away for 25 years to life for a nonviolent crime, even if they had previous convictions. He called the current law “unjust and wasteful.”

On both sides are passions and deeply held beliefs.

Proponents of the measure, who include prominent civil rights and religious organizations, call some of the punishments meted out under three-strikes sentencing requirements “cruel and unusual.” They argue that minorities have been disproportionally affected. And they say the state is spending tens of millions of dollars to incarcerate petty thieves and drug addicts who are no real threat to society.

Opponents of the measure, who point out that two of the strikes must have been violent or serious to trigger a term of 25 years to life, say the cost of crime to victims and their families is immeasurable. They say that if voters change the law, some of those released will kill again. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and state Atty. Gen. Bill Lockyer are among the prominent politicians urging voters to defeat the measure.

“The three-strikes law in its current form is an evil that perpetuates the cycle of violence,” said Javier Stauring, co-director of the Office of Restorative Justice for the Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, speaking at the launch of the pro-Proposition 66 campaign this month at the First African Methodist Episcopal center in South Los Angeles.

In addition to requiring all strikes to be for serious or violent felonies, Proposition 66 also would change the definition of those crimes -- for example, removing arson and burglary from the list and requiring that bodily injury be intentional.

“Those felons are going to be moved into your neighborhood,” said Kelly Moran, whose group, California Organization of Police and Sheriffs, formed one of two committees opposing Proposition 66.

“Proponents want to make you believe they’re pot smokers and bread stealers, but the fact is they are convicted felons,” Moran said. “The question is whose mother is going to be raped or who’s going to get killed over a drug deal because there are going to be people who don’t belong back out on the street?”

Each side accuses the other of lying and misleading voters. Those backing the initiative repeatedly accuse their opponents of trying to scare voters into keeping the law intact.

Asked about Matthews and other felons used as examples by anti-Proposition 66 forces, Steve Hopcraft, campaign consultant for the side favoring the measure, referred to the early-release list as a “boogeyman,” saying, “Looks like Halloween came early this year.”

Beyond rhetoric and sad stories, the two sides disagree on the facts. Proponents of the measure say about 4,000 current prisoners would be eligible for resentencing; opponents cite a California District Attorneys Assn. study that put the number at 26,000.

They also disagree about the law’s effectiveness.

Santa Barbara County Dist. Atty. Tom Sneddon said he and other district attorneys throughout the state have no doubt that the law has helped reduce crime, and noted that courts have given prosecutors discretion in using strikes against defendants.

Proponents of the initiative cited a study released last week by the Washington-based Justice Policy Institute that found California’s law to be the only one in the country that allows the third strike to be a minor offense.

In California, 42,000 people are serving time under three strikes, nearly as many as in all other states combined. The study, conducted by an advocacy group that says it is committed to “ending society’s reliance on incarceration,” found that 57% of third-strikers had their 25-years-to-life sentences triggered by a nonviolent offense.

The two sides even disagree on the intent of the original law. Initiative proponents say they are “fixing three strikes” to bring it in line with voters’ wishes. Those who oppose Proposition 66 say Californians knew how strict the law was, and passed it overwhelmingly for that reason.

“These are career criminals, all of them,” said Sneddon, referring to 250 people he says could be released early in his county.

In a statement put out after the launch of the initiative opponents’ campaign, Joe Klaas disagreed.

“It is misleading and inaccurate for opponents to say that anyone will be ‘released’ by Prop. 66,” he said. “Prop. 66 allows for new trials, new charges, and releases no one. Prosecutors would be able to retry anyone who seeks to be resentenced under Prop. 66. Prop. 66 opponents continue to make claims that a judge has found to be ‘patently false’ and ‘mathematically impossible.’ ”

Adding to the emotion are the stories of the men behind both the original law and the attempt to get it changed.

“Three strikes” was the brainchild of Mike Reynolds, a grief-stricken father whose 18-year-old daughter was shot in the head by career criminals trying to rob her outside a Fresno restaurant.

Another anguished parent, a man whose son was sentenced under the three-strikes law, played a key financial role in getting the current initiative on November’s ballot. Jerry Keenan’s son, Richard, is serving eight years in Folsom prison for crashing his Lexus while intoxicated and killing two passengers in 2004.

Richard Keenan was 21 at the time of the accident and driving on a suspended license. Sentenced as a second-striker, Keenan could be eligible for parole as early as the end of this year if the law is changed; otherwise he must serve 85% of his sentence before being considered for parole.

Keenan, an insurance company owner, has given $1.7 million to the pro-Proposition 66 campaign, which has nearly $2.3 million. Another large chunk of money came from three out-of-state donors opposed to mandatory sentencing laws, including $150,000 from billionaire financier and frequent Democratic Party donor George Soros.

Californians United for Public Safety, an anti-Proposition 66 group whose treasurer is the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn.’s longtime attorney, has reported more than $177,000 in contributions. Most of it -- about $150,000 -- came from the powerful state prison guards union.

Keenan’s role is a sore point for opponents of the measure. Sneddon’s criticism of him last week was representative: “The reality is this is about a guy whose son is in prison who has put up millions to get him out.”

Brian Gurwitz, an assistant district attorney in Orange County who has taken a leave to fight the initiative, said voters are being asked to put their sympathy in the wrong place.

“How hard is it not to commit another felony?” he asked. “I don’t think it’s that hard.”

But Dorothy Erskine, whose nephew Brian Smith is serving 25 years to life on a third strike for shoplifting, said she sees a different reality.

She said her nephew’s criminal history was connected to drugs, an addiction that began after his mother died of cancer when he was 17. Erskine said Smith had prior convictions for stealing a car, using force on the driver and burglarizing an unoccupied house. In 1994, he was with two women at a mall in Cerritos when they were all stopped for stealing hundreds of dollars worth of sheets.

The women served a few years and have long since been released, she said. Her nephew -- who is no longer on drugs and has been trained to repair air conditioners -- is still in prison.

“I do feel Brian should have served time for each and every crime he committed,” the retired schoolteacher said. “But I believe the time should fit the crime.”

*

Times researcher Maloy Moore contributed to this report.