Informed Opinions on Today’s Topics : The 3-Strikes Rule: Is It a Hit or a Miss?

Reacting to the arrest of a suspect in the Polly Klaas slaying, some politicians have thrown their support behind an initiative proposed for the November ballot that would send “three-time losers” to prison for life. Under the initiative, anyone convicted of two prior “violent” or “serious” felonies could be sentenced to 25 years to life in prison if they were convicted of a third felony, whether the third crime was violent or not. Gov. Pete Wilson last month suggested legislators adopt similar measures, which would eliminate the need for the voter initiative.

*

Should criminals convicted of three felonies, regardless of whether the crimes were violent, be sentenced to 25 years to life in prison?

The Rev. Zedar E. Broadous, president of the San Fernando Valley chapter of the NAACP: In this day and age we have a great influx of crime and violence. We find bandages, but we don’t do anything to solve the root problems. I hear about building more prisons. I hear nothing about building more schools or upgrading our schools. True enough, criminals should be dealt with. . . . But as a society, we continue to do things that give people that feeling of instant relief by saying, “Let’s built more penitentiaries.” If we continue in that vein, we’ll be a police state. We’re not dealing with the root problem and that begins in oureducation system. It’s a bad use of money.

Dan Lungren, attorney general: I have given my complete and unqualified support for the passage of the “three strikes--you’re out” initiative, which will put the most violent, repeat offenders in California where they belong--behind bars. We must end the senseless policy of allowing chronic violent criminals who have committed felony after felony back on the streets to again commit felony after felony. It’s time to seal shut the revolving door in our criminal justice system which has allowed these criminals to inflict untold agony on victims and their families.

Sherman Block, Los Angeles County sheriff: I support reasonable and appropriate actions that will contribute to making our communities safer places in which to live and work. This includes placing additional public safety resources on our streets, educating our youth, and toughening sentencing laws aimed at violent criminals who have repeatedly victimized our citizenry. A person who has been convicted of felony crimes on three separate occasions probably has had a number of previous convictions for lesser crimes. Such a person is clearly a career criminal who refrains from criminal activity only when incarcerated. Removal from society is a reasonable expectation on the part of those who carry out their daily lives consistent with the legitimate rules established by society.

Mark Silverstein, Sherman Oaks resident and staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union: I think that we can’t solve the problem of crime or even violent crime by trying to store more people and warehouse them in prisons. One reason is because this is too expensive and that it doesn’t work. The prison population in California went up six times since 1977. It increased from 19,000 in 1977 to 113,000 in 1993. It has not affected the crime problem. But it costs so much money. Measures like this require building more and more prisons. It takes money away from crime prevention measures like education, job training, housing and medical care. . . . The idea that we’re dealing with nonviolent criminals this way only exaggerates what I think of as a non-productive measure. Dealing with nonviolent offenders by putting them in warehouse prisons rather than spending on something that would prevent them from committing the crime is too expensive and doesn’t work.