‘One Strike’ Sex Offense Measure Draws Praise, Scorn : Politics: The bill, carried by state Sen. Marian Bergeson, would put rapists, child molesters behind bars for life after the first conviction. Critics say it might produce unintended effects.

The awful facts are straightforward, simple. She was the victim of a brutal rape. The assailant was caught and convicted on 28 counts involving 11 different women. He received 153 years in prison.

But it’s Catherine Christie who feels like the one serving a life sentence.

Even as the Orange County woman continues to salve the emotional wounds she suffered in the 1988 attack, her anger has grown over society’s attitude toward rape. Though her attacker will probably never leave prison, Christie learned that such stiff sentences are the exception rather than the rule in California, where rapists average less than five years behind bars.

“Like others, I will live with the effects of this rape for the rest of my life,” Christie said. “It only seems fair that perpetrators should face the same consequences.”

She might soon get her wish. Buffeted by gusts of anti-crime sentiment sweeping the state in this election year, the Legislature is considering a “one strike” measure that would put rapists and child molesters behind bars for life after a first conviction. It would be the strictest such penalty in the nation.

The bill, carried by state Sen. Marian Bergeson (R-Newport Beach) at the behest of Gov. Pete Wilson, has been championed forcefully by victims of rape and molestation such as Christie, who came forward with several others last week to provide compelling personal testimony at a televised Capitol public hearing.

*

The Times’ policy is not to identify rape victims, but Christie’s name is being used in this story--with her permission--after she was publicly identified at the hearing.

While Christie and other boosters suggest a “one strike” law would mete out an appropriate penalty and could help begin to curb rape and molestation, opponents contend the proposal goes too far, representing a dangerous precedent as the state and nation grapple with how best to get tough on crime.

Critics argue that Bergeson’s bill would send incarceration costs skyrocketing and, in cases of date rape or incest, have a chilling effect on victims, witnesses, jurors or even prosecutors--potentially making it more difficult to put sex offenders behind bars.

They also say the measure blindly boosts penalties to the limit instead of carefully ratcheting up sentences for varying sex crimes, which run the gamut from lewd behavior to the most savage of rapes.

“This isn’t the drafting of penal law, this is the crayoning in of punishments on an apparently arbitrary basis,” said Franklin Zimring, a professor of law at UC Berkeley. “Penal law reform has become a branch of the theater of the absurd.”

Most critics blame the effort on election-year politics and pent-up public rage over crime. And in recent weeks, rape has became a top story.

*

A public outcry erupted last month over the parole of Melvin Carter, a serial rapist eventually released in rural Modoc County. In Claremont, residents protested plans to parole a convicted rapist in their community; their hopes were answered at least temporarily when he flunked a psychiatric test and was kept behind bars.

Wilson absorbed a dose of public abuse for the Carter parole but has used the “one strike” bill as a powerful retort. When gubernatorial opponent Kathleen Brown blamed him for Carter’s release, Wilson responded with a television commercial ripping the Democrat for misunderstanding California parole law and citing the “one strike” bill as proof he is tough on crime.

Of late, the Republican governor has barnstormed the state touting the “one strike” bill to boost both his crime credentials and his stock with women voters.

But some women’s groups, most notably the National Organization for Women, say the “one strike” measure would make rape reporting and convictions less likely. Wilson stalwarts, meanwhile, suggest NOW’s opposition stems from a different motivation--the group has endorsed Brown in the race for governor.

Whatever the motivations, critics contend the “one strike” bill remains an election-year caricature of careful legislation.

“The bottom line is that politicians feed on crime hysteria to help themselves get elected,” said Francisco Lobaco, the American Civil Liberties Union’s state legislative director. “That’s the unfortunate reality of the day.”

Opponents tried to water down the Bergeson bill during last week’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Sen. Bill Lockyer (D-Hayward) attempted to add language drawn from Democratic legislation that would essentially make only the most heinous crimes subject to a “one strike” penalty of life in prison. An uneasy Bergeson pulled the bill back and asked for more time to work with opponents.

“People are legitimately concerned about public safety and tired of repeat offenders who seem to be inadequately punished,” Lockyer said a few days later. “But I want the Legislature to produce a statute that’s appropriate and not overreact because it’s fashionable (to pass harsh crime laws) in an election year.”

Bergeson and officials in the governor’s office remain resolute, saying they won’t compromise on the legislation.

“I think we will have the votes to move a strong bill,” Bergeson said. “The bottom line is we release 250 convicted sex offenders from prison in California each month. To me, that is unacceptable.”

*

Bergeson contends a tough “one strike” measure is needed because most perpetrators of sex crimes are repeat offenders who rarely respond to rehabilitation. “I don’t want to give them a chance at that second victim,” she said.

But critics say evidence demonstrates otherwise. A 15-year study concluded in 1988 by the state Department of Justice found that about 20% of all sex offenders were arrested again for a similar crime.

Lockyer and others suggest the statistics paint an ominous scenario--the “one strike” bill might unnecessarily incarcerate for life the four of five who would not likely commit another sex crime.

Few of the bill’s opponents dispute that repeat rapists and molesters with a penchant for violence deserve to be put away for life. But they express concerns about handing out such extreme punishment for every sex crime conviction, suggesting a blanket life sentence for all might produce unintended effects.

In less sensational cases, juries may acquit defendants if they believe the penalty doesn’t fit the crime, critics contend. Prosecutors, meanwhile, may be more reluctant to press charges, they say.

People assaulted by friends or family--particularly in incest cases--might refuse to cooperate with authorities once they learned of the possible consequences, they say.

Such qualms have prompted some prosecutors to quietly voice reservations about the current draft of the Bergeson bill. Even as devout a crime fighter as Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren, who agrees certain sex crimes demand a life sentence, has expressed concerns to Wilson that the bill might discourage the reporting of some cases, particularly molestations.

The bill also would impose a life sentence for an offense such as spousal rape that may currently be charged as a misdemeanor. A molesters who forcefully fondles a child under the age of 14 through his or her clothing also could be put behind bars for life.

“Why should marital rape be considered more serious than unaggravated first-degree murder, attempted murder, mayhem?” Zimring questioned. “Having relations with someone under 14 is a serious crime, but is it worse than murder?”

*

Under current law, rape and many other violent sex crimes are punishable by sentences ranging from three to eight years for a single count. Lobaco of the ACLU contends those terms are tough enough, particularly because rapists often serve consecutive prison sentences for multiple convictions.

Others worry because rape and molestation have among the highest rates of false arrests, increasing the odds that innocent people could be incarcerated for life.

Zimring, for one, finds it troubling. “All around us,” he said, “we’re having this enormous debate about recovered-memory cases and in the middle of it up walks the governor with a proposal to make incest a crime punishable by life in prison without the possibility of parole.”

Boosters of the “one strike” bill, however, contend that such arguments shouldn’t eclipse the most pressing reality they see: that sentences for rape and molestation aren’t tough enough.