Pete (Give ‘em Hell) Wilson Strikes Back

Gov. Pete Wilson has been reading a lot of newspaper commentary about the new “three strikes” law that he signed. He also has seen TV reports. All this coverage has made such an impression that he’s been lifting some of the material--and giving it a different flavor.

The media critiquing and carping about the life sentences being too costly, ineffective and Draconian have inspired the governor’s sardonic side--and also his use of the word “hell.”

For example, he was telling the California Peace Officers Assn. last week about the man he’d read about who was charged with mugging a drifter for 50 cents on Los Angeles’ Skid Row.

“The editorial writers, the pundits are claiming this thug is a victim of a misguided law,” the governor said. “The ‘victim’ has a rap sheet that is 52 pages long--52. It includes convictions for manslaughter and kidnaping and now he’s mugged a homeless man. He’s looking at life in prison for assault and robbery.

“The critics say that’s proof of everything that is wrong with the ‘three strikes’ law. Well, the hell with that. I say it’s proof of everything that’s right with ‘three strikes.’ This is exactly the kind of incorrigible career criminal that we should go after.”

And the governor added, mockingly: “The public defender says (her) client is--quote--’very, very upset.’ (Pause for laughs.) You know, I believe that. I hope he is. That was the whole idea.”

Wilson also told about the TV interview of a man who had served time for manslaughter and now was awaiting trial for armed robbery. “He said his fellow inmates don’t like the new California crackdown,” Wilson reported. “This is a quote: ‘A lot of ‘em are talking about going out of state.’

“You know something, I find that far more persuasive than many of the pundits. . . . I’m convinced that the new crackdowns are, in fact, persuading (this inmate) and his pals that they ought to think about doing business elsewhere.”

*

But Wilson says the Legislature shouldn’t be satisfied with just passing the “three strikes” law. “To hell with that, too,” he told the peace officers.

Among other tough measures, the governor is pushing a “one strike” bill to require life in prison without possibility of parole for first-time violent child molesters and rapists.

March into the legislative halls, he admonished the officers, “and politely raise as much hell as you need to in order to bring about change.”

The Legislature already has felt plenty of hell-raising for one session--from Mike Reynolds, whose murdered daughter motivated him to sponsor the “three strikes” initiative; from Mark Klaas, father of murdered Polly; from radio talk shows, and the voters.

Many Democratic politicians also are feeling the heat from Republicans who have glommed onto Reynolds’ “three-strikes” ballot initiative and are grasping to make it an issue in the November election. The initiative is identical to the bill Wilson just signed and thus is redundant. But one would never know that from listening to the likes of Rep. Michael Huffington (R-Santa Barbara), who is using the ballot measure as the cornerstone of his U.S. Senate campaign.

*

In the antsy Legislature, Democrats privately are debating whether to completely walk away from the “three strikes” issue--since they’ve already succumbed to public pressure and passed the bill--or to offer an alternative on the November ballot.

Any alternative would target only so-called serious or violent felons for “three strikes and you’re out.” Unlike the Reynolds measure, such criminals as car thieves and store burglars would not be locked up for 25 years to life. Therefore, the state would save billions in prison costs--money that could be spent on crime prevention and education.

Backed by the District Attorneys Assn., new Senate Leader Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) is gingerly trying to determine if there’s support for a compromise alternative. But Assembly Speaker Willie Brown (D-San Francisco) wants none of it.

“Mr. Reynolds is not going to run me out there on that tree,” the Speaker says. “I don’t think Mr. Reynolds and his crowd (of Republicans) are going to be able to benefit from the ‘three strikes’ measure on the November ballot unless we give them a reason to.”

The consensus is that without Wilson’s support, no alternative could attract the two-thirds vote needed to pass the Legislature. And Wilson, Lockyer suspects, would demand provisions too tough for Democrats.

Wilson understands that although many politicians and pundits contend that it’s unfair and unwise to lock up career thieves for life, most people echo his view: To hell with them.