Prop. 66 Is Not the Way to Fix California’s Three-Strikes Law

Joe Domanick’s article on Proposition 66 (“Second Thoughts on Three Strikes,” Sept. 19) omits mention of several major changes to California’s three-strikes law if voters pass the proposition.

Proposition 66 would eliminate many crimes currently listed as “serious or violent,” including felony street gang offenses, virtually every residential burglary and many arsons and crimes in which the victim suffered great bodily injury. Under Proposition 66, conviction of any of these crimes would not be counted as a strike.

Domanick glossed over another significant aspect of Proposition 66: limiting the number of felony strikes to one strike per prosecution. A serial robber or serial rapist charged with multiple counts committed over a long period of time involving many victims could only count as one strike.

I oppose Proposition 66. It will destroy an effective tool to appropriately punish repeat criminal offenders who are convicted of serious and violent felonies. Within six months of its passage, it will cause the release of 16,000 to 18,000 incarcerated individuals in Los Angeles County alone. Current law can be improved by legislation. Proposition 66 is not the way.

Steve Cooley

Los Angeles County

District Attorney

*

What your article fails to discuss is why someone who is a repeat felon should be let loose. Clearly, the criminal has failed to reform. Why should society be victimized again by someone who is a career criminal? Richard Keenan used drugs, drank beer, got in a car that he was prohibited from driving, sped excessively and killed two passengers. He is sent to prison for eight years and his daddy is upset because this results in one strike?

His reasoning is that if his son commits another felony, it could be a second strike and his sentence could be doubled. Is that not the point? Is society not protected and served if Richard Keenan does not drive drunk, high and speeding? The problem is not the three-strikes law. It is the people who think the freedoms of the U.S. are designed to victimize its citizens.

Ron McElhaney

Via the Internet

*

Any legitimate debate regarding the fairness of the current three-strikes law was damaged by Domanick’s article. It lionized the four men who want to amend the law, it insulted their opposition and it neglected to discuss victim suffering and pain. There is a need to update the three-strikes law, but not with this proposition.

James Kearns

Newbury Park

*

I am surmising that many of the three-strikers mentioned in the article were given breaks by the courts at some time. So when they finally get 25 years to life in prison for theft, a nonviolent felony or a dope felony, they cry foul. I say “karma.”

Gordon Baskett

Via the Internet