Nobody Gets Life Just for Stealing a Pizza

Let’s get one thing straight about “three strikes” right away: No one has ever been sentenced to life in prison for stealing a slice of pizza. No one.

A career criminal named Jerry DeWayne Williams was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison last year after he was convicted of stealing a slice of pizza. But Williams’ wasn’t sentenced for pizza theft. He was sentenced for spending a lifetime preying on the weak and innocent and law-abiding.

News stories described Williams’ occupation as “warehouseman.” They should have called him what he really is: a professional criminal. At 27, he had five felony convictions under his belt. Remember, those are only convictions. The career criminal typically commits dozens, even hundreds of crimes, before he is caught.

Williams’ pizza grab wasn’t an innocent little prank. This was the case of a boozy giant--Williams is 6 feet 5 and 225 pounds--threatening five kids, one of them only 7 years old. Williams topped off an afternoon of beer drinking by demanding a slice of pizza from the kids at a food stand near the Redondo Beach pier. They refused, but Williams took a slice anyway. What would have happened if one of the kids had resisted? Would this thug who had already been convicted of five felonies have simply smiled and wandered off?

The people of California are sick and tired of predators like Williams roaming free. That’s why we passed “three strikes.” That’s why we’re trying to repair the damage done to “three strikes” by a state Supreme Court decision.

Unfortunately, a few misguided people aren’t bothered by the specter of a beer-swilling five-time felon wandering around the beach intimidating children. Even more unfortunate is that four of these people are members of the Senate Criminal Procedure Committee--three Democrats and an independent. They have refused to release Sen. Rob Hurtt’s new “three strikes” bill for a vote. It shows how out of touch with the people these liberal senators are.

In November 1994, the people of California went to the polls to vote on “three strikes,” the initiative that mandated 25 years to life in prison for a third felony conviction. It won with 72% of the vote. Eight months earlier, a “three strikes” law had passed the Assembly 59 to 10 and the Senate 29 to 7. Those are huge majorities, and they mirror the feelings of most Californians. We want to slam shut the revolving door of a system that keeps criminals locked up for a few years, then lets them out to kidnap and murder little girls like Polly Klaas.

Since the passage of “three strikes,” the message to lawbreakers is clear and uncomplicated: If you choose to lead a life of crime, we’ll put you in prison for life.

Hurtt’s bill is intended to counter the state Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of judicial discretion in sentencing, and to make sure that criminals do not escape the strict sentencing provisions of “three strikes.” When the people voted for “three strikes,” they said quite forcefully that they wanted to limit discretion in sentencing. We had seen too many judges let too many career criminals off with light sentences or no prison time at all.

The Hurtt bill requires that criminals convicted in “three strikes” cases receive the full punishment if:

* one of the criminal’s previous crimes was violent;

* or the criminal’s latest crime is a violent or “serious” felony;

* or the criminal committed his most recent crime within five years of being released from prison.

The Democrats in the Senate think those provisions are too harsh. Too harsh? We’re dealing with thugs who have been convicted of at least three felonies.

Jerry DeWayne Williams had five felony convictions. Does he really deserve six strikes?