Zimring on Prosecutors

* In “Curb Imperial Power of Prosecutors” (Commentary, April 20), Franklin Zimring mistakenly or misleadingly characterizes the three-strikes law as imposing “mandatory minimum” sentences and removing “judicial discretion to choose a prison term.” While removing judicial discretion in sentencing repeat offenders might have been the purpose of those who drafted and voted for the three-strikes law, the fact remains that back in 1996 the California Supreme Court held the three-strikes law permits trial judges to dismiss “strikes” in the interest of justice and to chose any prison term they may determine adequate under the circumstances.

Thus, contrary to Zimring’s conclusion, the ultimate sentencing power in the three-strikes law belongs to the judiciary, not to the prosecution.

JAIME L. FUSTER

State Prosecutor

Calabasas

* Zimring makes outstanding points in the troubling area of imperial prosecutors. He compares their power to being a simultaneous Little League coach and umpire. I’d add a third role, haranguing parent in the bleachers.

Allowing these folk to use the court for staging election campaigns or television auditions only exacerbates the public’s increasing distaste for the politician/attorney whose self-interest is presented as law. The memory of the extreme language of the House prosecutors reminds us how many of these folk go on to great power, still clinging to the ugly habits of polarization.

BOB RAND

Newport Beach