3rd Strike Is the Tip of an Iceberg of Crime

As usual, Erwin Chemerinsky (“Strike Out Three-Strikes Law,” Commentary, Nov. 6) is far more concerned with criminals than with victims. He presents the standard anecdotal case against the three-strikes law, listing all the terrible miscarriages of justice where thugs got put away because they swiped cookies, booze and vitamins.

Anyone who has been convicted three times hasn’t committed only three crimes. Obviously, I have no way of knowing how many offenses any particular thug has perpetrated. But it doesn’t seem unreasonable to suggest that, unless he is the stupidest crook in the world, he has gotten away with it on numerous occasions. So, we might very well be talking about not three strikes but 25 or 30.

If we are serious about trying to prevent crime, we might better spend our time listening to criminals than to USC professors, for, to a man, criminals will admit that the only thing that truly scares them straight is the threat of the three-strikes law hanging over their miserable heads.

Burt Prelutsky

North Hills

*

The Times (editorial, Nov. 7), unnamed district attorneys and Chemerinsky have it wrong. The citizens of California knew exactly what they were doing in passing the three-strikes law. We want to remove even repeat petty criminals from civil society because their behavior has clearly indicated that they will continue to be a problem if not put behind bars permanently. We do not want the cost of everything we buy to increase to cover petty theft. We do not want our children robbed of their pizza on a trip to the ocean pier. And if you think that the tide of public opinion has turned on this issue, please provide the names of the district attorneys who are circumventing the law and see how long they last in office.

Jeff McCombs

La Palma