‘3 Strikes’ Law Good Only for Violent Felons : Life for Nonviolent Offenders Could Free Worse Criminals

The nickname given to each of the efforts designed to put career criminals behind bars for life comes from the old baseball term “three strikes and you’re out.”

California already has an overly broad “three strikes” law on the books that could create as many problems as it would solve. There is another ill-conceived “three strikes” measure on the November ballot. The Reynolds initiative, as it is termed, would mandate life imprisonment without parole for a third conviction on any one of several felonies.

Reynolds is a bad idea because it would be embedded in the state Constitution and could be amended only by a two-thirds popular vote. But it is also a bad idea because it, too, is so broad that it could wind up pushing extremely violent felons out of prison. . .to make room for less violent and even nonviolent ones.

In fact, it is that very important “you’re out” part of all this that we are concerned with here. It’s easy for politicians and for the rest of us to jump on the “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” bandwagon, but something has to give if that happens. Somewhat neglected in the debate, for example, are two possible results and two alternatives. One is an immensely larger prison system, more costly as well by several billions of dollars. The other is a greatly expanded parole office system, where all the ex-cons must gather from time to time to prove that they are having a positive impact on society, or at least a non-impact. Just where are all those parole offices going to be, and who is going to even begrudgingly accept such facilities as neighbors?

Consider, for example, the recent brouhaha over the placement of an office in Sherman Oaks for some 4,100 parolees from state prisons who now live in the San Fernando Valley. News of the office’s impending arrival mobilized the citizenry in Sherman Oaks, and their outrage prompted officials to cancel the decision. It turned out that the placement violated the state’s own guidelines for keeping such facilities at least one-quarter of a mile away from schools and parks.

Still, many more parole offices may be on the way, perhaps to a street near you.

Why? Well, let’s consider the unenviable choices created by overly broad life imprisonment legislation.

As of March, there were at least 30,000 felons in California, all standing in their respective batters’ boxes with two strikes against them and counting, all facing the potential of life imprisonment if they make one more bad swing.

The prisons also are jammed. Just 12 years ago, there were only 18,000 inmates in the entire California penal system. Today, that population stands at more than 120,000.

It could cost as much as $21 billion if we decide to build new prisons for the estimated 109,000 additional inmates anticipated by the turn of the century. This is in a state where the economy continues to sputter like a car badly in need of higher octane fuel, a state where too few are willing to ante up even for schools or earthquake repairs.

And if we don’t spend the money on new prisons, it will mean that more of those in prison now will have to be released to make room for those who will be incarcerated for life under “three strikes.” That means busier parole offices, and more of them.

The uproar over that Sherman Oaks site won’t hold a candle to that, not in a region where people are so litigious that they will go to war over the placement of a drive-thru doughnut shop around the block.

Think of all these unintended consequences. It’s enough to make us take a very restrained approach to “three strikes.” It is why we have supported versions that would reserve life imprisonment without parole only for repeat violent offenders. That’s what we all want to accomplish. That is what is manageable, and affordable.