The Smart ‘3 Strikes’ : Give California voters a choice in November

Those who doubt that frightened Californians are in a mood to approve almost anything to make themselves feel safer need not look further than the state’s primary election results. It’s clear that crime will be a central issue of the fall campaign.

Consider Proposition 179, a relatively unpublicized ballot measure that amends the state Constitution to increase the penalty for a drive-by shooting. It was approved by nine in 10 voters. Fear among the electorate was also evident in Times Poll findings that crime--not the economy, education or immigration--was the top concern among those who voted.

Responding to voter discontent, politicians have inundated Sacramento with anti-crime legislation. Most notable among them is the so-called “three strikes and you’re out,” otherwise known as the Reynolds initiative. The measure, which qualified in April for the November ballot and is supported by Gov. Pete Wilson, would impose a sentence of at least 25 years for a third felony conviction.

Many Californians gladly would support such harsh treatment for violent felons such as murderers, rapists or kidnapers. Problem is, under the three-strikes initiative, lesser crimes including residential burglary, petty theft and even a false statement on a loan application could qualify as a third strike. That’s hardly making punishment fit the crime. Not to mention the cost of hundreds of billions of scarce dollars for implementation over the years.

If Wilson and the Legislature are serious about fighting crime, and doing it responsibly, they will give the voters an alternative initiative that improves upon the current three-strikes ballot measure.

One such proposal, which includes language put forth by Assemblymen Tom Umberg (D-Garden Grove) and Richard K. Rainey (R-Walnut Creek), is about to be introduced in the Legislature. It is a stronger, more responsible and less costly three-strikes plan. It mandates 25 years to life for a narrow list of serious felonies. Wilson has indicated he would not sign the measure. But he should give voters the chance to decide for themselves.