Editorial:  Keeping California’s worst behind bars

Christopher Hubbart has had a hard time trying to find a place to live, and no wonder. He’s a serial rapist who assaulted women in the 1970s and ‘80s, was convicted and released, only to rape again. He was committed indefinitely to a mental facility until such time as he was determined by authorities to no longer be a threat.

There was such a determination last summer, and it was upheld by a California court, but Hubbart waited while officials hunted for a place in Los Angeles County where he could live. The search was made more difficult by staunch opposition from Dist. Atty. Jackie Lacey and Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich. And good for them.

Hubbart is a poster child, but for what? Not for the tough-on-crime argument that California coddles its criminals. There is a vast difference between a repeat rapist like Hubbart and the thousands of felons who are locked up for long terms for nonviolent or less violent crimes, many of whom, unlike Hubbart, are amenable to rehabilitation. He is the symbol for why California should have a repeat offender law like “three strikes” — as modified wisely by voters in 2012 to ensure that only repeat violent criminals, and not petty offenders who may have violence in their pasts, are locked up for life.

Few if any other California inmates would fall into Hubbart’s narrow, almost bizarre category, having committed his crimes a generation ago, too early to be covered by three strikes but on the verge of release only now.

The 1970s and ‘80s, when Hubbart earned his convictions, were generally a time in which lawmakers and the public went overboard on punishments, especially for drug crimes but also for first-time violent crimes. The state rejected the notion of rehabilitation and went on a prison-building binge. But oddly, punishment for the especially brutal crime of rape remained light. To this day, sentences can be three, six or eight years, absent extenuating circumstances, and most offenders actually serve only half of those terms, followed by a year on parole.

California needs a sentencing commission outside the political process to recommend sensible and balanced terms for offenses. It’s generally thought that such a commission would lower sentences, but there may be cases in which it would raise them. That would be appropriate if it would help reserve prison space for the Christopher Hubbarts of the world, while investing resources to salvage those who are more likely to return safely to society.