Group Fights With Conviction Against Sentencing Law

The seven of them sit in a semi-circle in the living room, on sofa seats and chairs, each with a story to tell. None are happy stories, but on this balmy Thursday night in the big old house in north Santa Ana, the group tries to be upbeat. In the kitchen, a middle-aged man whips up beef stroganoff for the group.

One of the women shows TV footage of their recent protest demonstration. “Let’s talk about what we did right, what we did wrong,” she says to the group. “We didn’t have 50 more people,” the cook says, joining them for a minute.

Later, it’s suggested that another woman in the group consider making a video and describe her situation, to which the woman tearily replies, “It’s terrible to have to tell people your kid is in jail for the rest of his life because of you.”

This is as grass-roots as it gets: a group of anonymous citizens fighting one of the least popular battles there is--convincing the public that it’s too tough on crime.

These people, a rainbow coalition of races and ages, all have friends or relatives imprisoned under three-strikes sentences. The woman with tears in her eyes is referring to the fact she practiced “tough love” with her son, convincing friends to call the police after he had burglarized them. That conviction became one of his strikes and, at 28, he now is doing 25 years to life.

Christy Johnson is the most vocal member of the group. A tall woman with long brown hair who lives in San Juan Capistrano, she tells the group about her recent state Senate testimony. “I was so excited,” she says. “I cried.” The bill, SB 1317, got out of committee and she’s optimistic it will pass. Sponsored by Sen. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland), the bill would limit the three-strikes penalty to serious or violent offenders rather than anyone with any kind of felony conviction.

Johnson’s husband, Dan, whom she married in 1996 an hour after he was sentenced on a third strike, is serving his term for drug possession. “I never imagined I’d be in this situation,” Christy Johnson says. “Most people are astounded when they realize that’s what’s happening. Most people believe it’s given for violent, serious offenses, to the really bad guys.”

A hybrid of being advocates as well as a support group for each other, the group plans to demonstrate Friday in front of the county courthouse. They’re also gearing up for a “town hall” meeting on May 17 at St. Joseph Sisters of Orange.

Enacted in 1994, three-strikes legislation and a successful ballot measure rode a wave of public revulsion over the abduction-murder of Polly Klaas, victimized by a repeat offender on parole. That powerful specter hovers over efforts to amend the three-strikes law.

“I think they are [bucking the tide],” says Elisa Vitanza, an aide to Sen. Lee whom I asked about the effort of Johnson’s group and others in the state. “It’s a slow effort. There are not a lot of people who want to rally around this.”

Lee’s bill cleared one Senate committee and goes to the Appropriations Committee in two weeks. If it survives, it would go to the full Senate and then the Assembly.

“To eliminate the law altogether is unrealistic,” Vitanza said. “It has a lot of support, but what 1317 does is it says we’re sending people to prison for those longer sentences, like the voters intended. They intended violent felons to be put away forever--people like Richard Davis [who killed Polly Klaas]--that’s what people were thinking of. Right now, you can be convicted of any felony--like stealing or forging checks--and you can be sent to prison for life.”

Since 1994, Orange County judges have sent 130 people to prison under three-strikes sentencing, according to Deputy Dist. Atty. Mel Jensen. More than 400 others originally tabbed as potential three-strikers ultimately had charges dismissed or reduced--either by prosecutors or judges, Jensen noted. One reason the district attorney might “strike” a third strike, Jensen says, is “in the interest of justice.”

“If the strikes are real old and the person has lived an upright life in the meantime and this [the third strike] is just a minor offense, we may say, ‘Gee, 25 to life just doesn’t meet the criteria for this individual,’ ” Jensen says.

However, he is quick to point out that the district attorney’s office doesn’t insist that the third strike be a serious or violent felony to proceed with prosecution.

That defines the battleground: Does the public want three strikes reserved for “serious and violent” offenders, or is it so fed up with crime it doesn’t care about the details?

Vitanza says the public will be forced to limit three strikes to violent offenders, because it won’t be able to afford enough prisons. With the overwhelming majority of inmates now serving time for nonviolent offenses and with prisons at nearly 200% of capacity, she says, “What are we going to do with the violent felons we want to keep in there? We have to build more prisons. This is not something the state should be heading down to do.”

Meanwhile, Christy Johnson, who never imagined herself in a debate like this, now has the fervor of a newly converted zealot.

“It used to be just Hope [another woman in the group] and I, standing on the corner on a Saturday,” she says of her protests. “We have some credentials now. I think if we make people aware, we can really make a difference. SB 1317, all of us could live with that. Most people believe that’s what we’re living with anyway.”

Dana Parsons’ column appears Wednesday, Friday and Sunday. Readers may reach Parsons by writing to him at The Times Orange County Edition, 1375 Sunflower Ave., Costa Mesa, CA 92626, or calling (714) 966-7821.