Trouble in Anti-Crime Paradise : As implementation of ‘three strikes’ law begins, the statute’s defects are ever more obvious

The Legislature passed the “three strikes and you’re out” law in March by a wide margin and with lightning speed. The abduction and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas, allegedly by a man with a string of felony convictions, gave the bill popular appeal and legislative momentum unprecedented even for a crime bill. But obscured in the rush to passage were serious concerns, now resurfacing.

The law mandates life imprisonment for individuals convicted of a third felony. Its backers were justifiably outraged that the criminal justice system had allowed repeat felons, including rapists and murderers, to go free. This law, they argued persuasively, would lock the revolving door.

During the bill’s fast trip to Gov. Pete Wilson’s desk, opponents--no less anxious to reduce crime--raised equally valid concerns. Was the law drawn too broadly, imposing unduly harsh punishment on nonviolent offenders and juveniles? Could it indeed be implemented? Were there enough prosecutors, enough judges to hear the many jury trials likely to result? Could we finance construction of the prisons needed to house the repeat felons for life?

Those questions and others now loom large as the first felons charged with a “third strike” come to trial. Consider:

Perhaps half of the several hundred affected defendants across the state are charged with a so-called “wobbler” offense. These are crimes such as petty theft or second-degree burglary that can be prosecuted as either misdemeanors or felonies, depending in part on what the judge decides. Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren has moved to limit the judicial discretion in order to bring more “wobblers” as felonies.

A Santa Barbara judge who recently reduced to misdemeanors two felony charges against a man with two “strikes” on his record took the occasion to rail against law, calling it “a piece of junk.” Prosecutors are now appealing her ruling, in part because of those comments.

That judge’s opposition--if not the vociferousness of her remarks--reflects the views of many trial judges and even prosecutors. Opposition extends to some crime victims as well. Because a conviction would have been the defendant’s third “strike,” a San Francisco woman refused to testify at a hearing in April for the man accused of stealing her car. Since the prior convictions were for residential and auto burglary, she opposed the law’s application.

The Legislature can--and should--fix the defects now apparent in this law by, for example, narrowing its application to violent crimes. But Californians should take note: If voters pass the “three-strikes” initiative that is on the November ballot--a measure virtually identical to the statute--the law will become part of the state Constitution, defects and all. Correction then will be far more difficult, which is why that currently popular measure should be defeated.