Modifying 3-Strikes Law

* Re “Law Strikes Too Hard,” editorial, Aug. 24: After reading your editorial about the three-strikes law I feel compelled to write. I agree that it is time to review the harshness of the so-called three-strikes law. It is too severe. It is, indeed time to revisit this issue.

It is interesting, however, to see that the most compelling reason this issue has surfaced is money. We should not forget the impact of this law on the many people incarcerated for minor offenses and their families. Perhaps the Legislature can come up with a law that is not only cost-effective but humane as well.

E. JEAN GARY

Attorney, Los Angeles

* In your editorial, you question the imposition of three-strikes sentencing for individuals convicted of nonviolent offenses such as drug possession and petty theft. Included in your list of nonviolent offenses was burglary, and while residential burglary is not a violent felony under Penal Code section 667.5, it is a serious felony. A residential burglary is one of the priors which makes a defendant eligible for sentencing under three strikes in the first place.

To consider a residential burglary as an insignificant violation of the criminal law, as your editorial seems to suggest, is not supported by statute, common sense or by the experiences of anyone victimized by that crime.

WILLIAM WOODS

Deputy District Attorney

Appellate Division

Los Angeles