Three Strikes: Why Wait for Violence?

The “three strikes,” law intended to put repeat felons behind bars for 25 years to life, has stayed in the news since its enactment, with stories about young men facing life in prison for petty theft or possession of tiny amounts of drugs and predictions of prisons jammed to the rafters. Two weeks ago, the California Supreme Court has its own say about the law, ruling that, in certain cases, judges could overlook one or more previous strikes when imposing sentences.

District attorneys already had a lot of leeway in deciding whether to prosecute a case under three strikes. JIM BLAIR talked to prosecutors and supervisors in D.A.’s offices in four counties, and to two defense attorneys, about how or if they would change the three-strikes law. The prosecutors all emphasized that their opinions here are not necessarily their employers’.

The Prosecutors

SEAN R. STAFFORD

Deputy Dist. Atty., Orange County

I wouldn’t change a thing with the law. I think it works very well and we’re going to see a tremendous reduction in serious crime in five to 10 years. There’s about 3% or 4% of the population here in Orange County committing about 85% of the crime, and it’s these recidivists that this law was designed to focus on.

There’s been some problem with overcrowding in the [Orange County] jails, but that’s only because it takes awhile for third-strike offenders to actually to go to trial. But as far as state prisons are concerned, there’s plenty of room. As far as the cost of housing them is concerned, it’s a greater cost to society when these guys are out there committing crime sprees.

There’s been some talk that the law should have been designed only for serious or violent felonies--not the petty thefts with priors, not the wobblers that could be filed as misdemeanors. But why should we wait for them to do another violent crime and victimize somebody else when they’re out there committing daily felonies?

*

MICHAEL RAMOS

Deputy Dist. Atty., San Bernardino County

I never liked the term “three strikes.” It was a catchy phrase, but I think maybe that should be changed and call [such defendants] what they truly are--career criminals.

In the courtroom, I am picking up that our criminal element, the defendants, [are] scared. And I’ve heard rumors, [although] I haven’t checked it out, that [convicts] are applying for out-of-state parole.

*

BRIAN J. SUSSMAN

Supervising deputy Dist. Atty., Riverside County

What I would do is turn back the clock pre-Romero [the state court decision that increased judges’ leeway in sentencing three-strikes cases]. I didn’t have any problems with the law. I thought it was working well. The murder rate has been dropping as well as the overall crime rate.

The district attorney’s office had discretion not to proceed with a three strikes prosecution if we chose to--which is exactly what the voters voted [for] and exactly what the legislators wanted. I don’t want to belabor this Romero case, but I think clearly that’s completely changed the way that three-strikes is going to be handled now that the court can decide what strikes are allowed to be [considered].

I think we’ll be lucky if we see 50% of what we saw prior to this case.

*

KEVIN ROSS

Prosecutor, Dist. Atty.’s office, L.A. County

There is this high rate of recidivism and it is very frustrating to see these same indviduals come through the system. I know as a prosecutor there are those instances where three strikes is very appropriate. It is very equitable from the standpoint of giving a person an opportunity to really make the decision as to what they’re going to do with their life.

However, I think that it should be more narrowly tailored because the cost is climbing and it is creating [congestion] in the court system.

People don’t understand that for every action there’s a reaction. You can’t have it both ways. I think that third strike should be more narrowly tailored to really focus on serious or violent crimes.

The Defenders

LUIS CARRILLO

Criminal defense attorney, Montebello

The evil is there’s so much discretion afforded to the district attorney and it [causes] an imbalance in how many cases are prosecuted for three strikes. There should be uniformity of standardized criteria so that district attorneys throughout the state would prosecute certain cases as three strikes and others as the misdemeanors that they should be.

The kinds of cases that should not be prosecuted as third strikes are the petty thefts. And frequently when you have a petty theft with a prior--in other words another prior petty theft, they prosecute it as a felony.

The intent of the voters was to punish career criminals, violent criminals. However, you’re getting these cases where some guy stealing a pair of Levi’s is facing 25 years to life.

*

MICHAEL S. YAMAMOTO

Defense attorney, Los Angeles, and president of the Multi-cultural Bar Alliance

I would [increase even more] the discretion that’s allocated to judges. I would allow them to make a decision about the sentencing of each individual defendant because traditionally, in the separation of powers, the judge is charged with the responsibility of meting out a fair sentence. It has to include punishment. It has to include all the different philosophies of sentencing, including rehabilitation.

And I don’t believe that the legislature or anybody else can make a complete decision about any individual defendant. The only person who is in a good position to do that is the judge, with the help of the prosecutor and the defense attorney.