When California voters adopted the “three strikes” law in 1994, they accelerated a chain of events that ultimately led to unconstitutional overcrowding in state prisons and a federal court order to release 46,000 people.
As the 30th anniversary of the vote approaches, the three strikes are back on the ballot in two unexpected ways.
The race for Los Angeles County district attorney will likely determine whether the state Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the law or throw it out. And Proposition 36, if passed, would allow two low-level misdemeanors, theft and drug possession, to be treated as third offenses and converted to felonies.
Without necessarily realizing it, voters are now deciding whether to double down on three strikes and, in doing so, saddle themselves with higher jail and prison costs and a larger incarceration footprint, much as they are currently paying a heavy price. for their rights. vote three decades ago.
Three-strikes laws, like baseball's “three strikes and you're out” rule, target repeat offenders with additional punishments. California's version was adopted twice, first by the Legislature on March 7, 1994, and by voters that same year.
The law doubles the sentence of anyone convicted of a second serious or violent crime. A third conviction results in a sentence of 25 years to life in prison.
In the original language of the law, the third conviction could be for any crime, including a nonviolent misdemeanor, and that provision allowed for the notorious 25-to-life sentence for Jerry DeWayne Williams for stealing a slice of pizza from children in the Redondo Beach Pier.
Williams was released early when a judge reduced his sentence, but the episode inspired a 2012 ballot measure that required the third strike to be a felony like the first two.
When the Los Angeles County District. Lawyer. George Gascón was elected in 2020, ordering his prosecutors not to seek second or third strike sentences, arguing that the punishment for the underlying crime should be enough to hold perpetrators accountable.
The prosecutors' union, the Assn. of Deputy Prosecutors — sued Gascón, alleging that the three strikes law is not discretionary because it says that prosecutors duty – No can – “declare and prove” previous strikes. The lower courts agreed.
The union's legal team included former federal prosecutor Nathan Hochman, who is now running to unseat Gascón in the Nov. 5 election.
The state Supreme Court has taken up the case to decide whether the interpretation violates the constitutionally required separation of powers and prosecutorial discretion. Obviously, critics of three strikes argue, prosecutors cannot be required to “prove” their cases, because that would mean they are always legally obligated to win, an outcome that is not under their control. So if the language really can't require them to “prove” their case, it also can't require them to “plead” (to seek enhancements to their sentences under the three-strikes law).
But after two years, arguments still have not been scheduled. And polls show Hochman with a wide lead. If he wins, he told the Times editorial board, he will drop his appeal to the Supreme Court and leave intact the ruling that the three-strikes law requires prosecutors to seek the longest possible sentence.
That outcome would strip voters in each county of the ability to elect a district attorney, like Gascón, who believes justice and security would be better achieved with less onerous prison sentences.
Proposition 36 would add the two mini-three-strikes provisions, which turn a third misdemeanor into a felony, although it is not punishable by anything approaching a sentence of 25 years to life in prison.
A person with two prior convictions for misdemeanor drug offenses could be charged with a third “treatment-mandatory felony” offense. The person could choose to complete a court-approved drug treatment program and have the conviction dismissed or be sentenced to jail or prison.
Under a different provision of Proposition 36, a person with two prior petit larceny convictions could be charged with a third felony and sent to jail. Stealing a slice of pizza would once again expose the offender to the possibility of a multi-year sentence.
In fact, minor drug and theft crimes already carry prison sentences, but in counties with overcrowded jails, such as Los Angeles, police, prosecutors and jailers reserve their efforts for more dangerous criminals.
That's a smarter use of resources. County jails today are where state prisons were after three strikes and other crackdowns on crime led to unconstitutional overcrowding. After federal judges ordered prison releases, California sent lower-level offenders to local jails instead of state prisons, and counties were expected to make room in jails by finding creative, safe and effective alternatives to confinement. to their populations from nonviolent misdemeanors.
Progress has been slow. Some local officials in city and county governments and in law enforcement long for the days when they could send convicted felons to state prisons and locally wash their hands of the costs and responsibilities of housing them and altering their future behavior. Proposition 36 does allow some repeat offenders to be sent to prison, but most will simply increase the county's jail population and strain local resource budgets to find alternatives to incarceration.
