A Letter From ‘Exhibit A’ in ‘3 Strikes’ Debate

Got another letter from my pen pal the other day. That’s pen as in ballpoint and pen as in penitentiary.

Brian Simpson recognized the pun before I did. Now it’s truer than ever because Simpson, a thrice-convicted felon, has been transferred from jail to state prison. When I first wrote about Simpson in January, he was facing a 17-year sentence. As it turned out, he accepted a plea bargain with a 12-year term.

As always, Simpson reports from Wasco State Prison, I’ve landed on my feet, ever the wily convict, yet an anomaly amongst the ‘peckerwoods’ (white inmates): a college man, well-spoken, articulate, clean-cut & shaven, no ‘tacks’ (tattoos.) This generally works to my advantage, this professorial aspect, but can backfire (there are times to be a “wood,” when a high-falutin’ vocab. isn’t appreciated.)

Brian’s letters always make me leery. You have to worry about a con. That’s con as in convict and con as in con job.

Still, as California contemplates building 20 more prisons and committing $2 billion a year to operate them, Simpson is a decent Exhibit A in the unpopular case against “three strikes and you’re out.”

*

Perhaps you are disappointed that Simpson, 40, won’t be spending the rest of his days in prison, as he would if the best-known “three strikes” proposal were now law. If he lived to the age of 80, that would cost us $1 million to house a man who is not prone to violence and might actually join the ranks of law-abiding taxpayers if he could kick his craving for crystal methamphetamine. (The defense will stipulate that during his last residential burglary, Simpson did swing a Christmas stocking loaded with a metal box when he was surprised by a boarder who happened to be a highway patrolman.)

Simpson may have targeted elderly victims in his burglaries but he didn’t leave a trail of blood. Perhaps the most interesting thing about this criminal is that he had a middle-class upbringing and was attending UCLA when he spiraled into drugs and crime.

This waste of opportunity may be all the more reason to regard Simpson with contempt. But as California moves toward passage of some version of “three strikes,” the relevant question is whether Simpson’s punishment fits his crimes. Under California’s current laws, Simpson may be eligible for parole after six years if he behaves. So is six to 12 years enough for a three-time loser like Simpson? Or, as the “three strikes” initiative proposes, should such a felon be put away forever?

Fear of crime and outrage over the failures of the criminal justice system--illustrated by the reckless handling of Richard Alan Davis, the accused killer of Polly Klaas--have fueled the demand for extreme sentences and has politicians trying to look tough. Gov. Pete Wilson and his Democratic gubernatorial opponents have endorsed the harshest “three strikes” proposal. The National Rifle Assn. touts it as an alternative to gun control. The prison guard union, naturally, loves it.

The prevailing wisdom in Sacramento, then, is that a creep is a creep is a creep. There is no distinction between the sicko who kidnaps, rapes and kills children and a petty thief armed with a Christmas stocking. All are beyond redemption.

Interestingly, politicians closer to the trenches, such as Sheriff Sherman Block and Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti, oppose this measure. Assemblyman Richard K. Rainey (R-Walnut), a former sheriff, has offered perhaps the best alternative to the “three strikes” bill--one that would impose life imprisonment for a third violent felony, or a third serious felony if the first two were violent.

The chief argument against “three strikes” is its expense, which would divert money from education, drug rehab programs, police and prosecutors. For years, California has spent more and more to put people in prison and less and less to educate children. Fifteen years ago, California was one of the top states in spending per student. Now it is near the bottom. More prisons haven’t discouraged crime but, it seems, weaker schools have encouraged it. Troubled schools, the deterioration of family life, easy access to guns--all have fueled the ugliness in youth crime.

Other arguments deal with practical effects. Doesn’t the prospect of life imprisonment give felons incentive to murder witnesses? Garcetti, moreover, predicts a “tremendous jury backlash. Jurors are going to require more proof than ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ ”

Garcetti should know. His office is prosecuting the Menendez boys.

The moral argument against “three strikes” is one that no one wants to hear. People like Simpson’s wife, Christine, and his father, Bob, a retired school principal, say Brian has let them down in the past, but they believe he may yet redeem himself.

Simpson, with credit for a year spent in jail, should be out in 1999. He might screw up again. But maybe he won’t.