Proposition 66 would limit parts of 'three-strikes' sentencing law

By JUSTIN PRITCHARD, Associated Press Writer
Last Updated 3:48 am PDT Sunday, September 19, 2004

LOS ANGELES (AP) - California voters are taking a second whack at "three-strikes" guidelines a decade after they first passed the nation's toughest sentencing law.

Crime and punishment have always made for raw politics, and the rhetoric swirling around Proposition 66 can make it tough to sort out just what it would do.

Pass it Nov. 2, proponents say, and restore sanity to a law that has put away for life some shoplifters and small-time junkies. Pass it, opponents say, and predatory criminals will flood streets the current law has made safer.

The truth, of course, lies somewhere between.

In essence, Proposition 66 turns on the question of how justice should be administered: Is the goal retribution, or another chance?

The ballot measure has two primary thrusts:

- First, by requiring that the maximum sentence only be triggered if a third conviction is a "serious or violent" felony, backers say the proposition targets repeat offenders instead of the petty criminals whose 25-to-life terms prompted an unsuccessful appeal of current law to the Supreme Court. That requirement would bring California in line with the three-strikes laws of many other states.

The proposition also shortens the list of strikes by deleting felonies from criminal threats to burglary of an unoccupied residence.

Proponents say that's what voters really wanted in 1994 when, cowed by a tough-on-crime lobby that gained clout as public safety deteriorated, they passed the original three-strikes proposition. The unintended consequences, they say, were thousands of hard-luck cases forced to become life sentences.

Opponents counter that voters knew just what they were doing: locking up hardcore repeat offenders before they can rape, murder or rob again. Someone needs three felony convictions to qualify for a life term, they point out, and that's enough to prove they're dangerous.

- Second, Proposition 66 would make eligible for resentencing any inmate serving life if their third strike isn't "serious or violent." Judges would reassess whether a felon is serving an unjustifiably long term.

Wildly divergent claims about how many inmates would be released under this provision illustrate how superheated the campaign has become.

Citing a report by the state's Legislative Analyst's Office, Proposition 66 backers say no more than 4,100 felons - none the predatory villain that opponents claim - could have their sentences reduced. Opponents assert as many as 26,000 felons could be released.

The Legislative Analyst's Office estimates that some fraction of the current 7,500 third strikers would be eligible for resentencing, but doesn't publicly estimate how many might gain freedom.

Even one felon's early release would be a crime against society, according to Mike Reynolds, who galvanized California's three-strikes movement following his daughter's 1992 murder.

"If this thing passes, you're looking at a wholesale bloodbath," Reynolds says.

"A bloodbath - why? We're not letting any violent people out," counters Joe Klaas, a leading Proposition 66 supporter.

Klaas is also the grandfather of Polly Klaas, the girl whose brutal kidnapping and murder made her the poster child for the 1994 law. The three-strikes issue is so divisive that the proposition has driven a wedge between Joe Klaas and his son, Marc, Polly's father and an ardent opponent of Proposition 66.

That schism reflects how statements from each side often directly conflict.

Take the issue of whether the proposition would cost or save taxpayers money.

Proponents hail a legislative analyst's report that says Proposition 66 would save taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by reducing the prison population over time. Opponents call that ridiculous, saying it would cost millions to beef up law enforcement to catch and imprison newly released strikers who will inflict suffering on the public that can't be measured.

The issue is already generating lots of campaign cash, much of it controversial.

Opponents accuse the proposition's biggest backer, Sacramento-area resident Jerry Keenan, of trying to buy freedom for his son, who is serving an eight-year prison sentence for a car crash that killed two people.

The California Correctional Peace Officers Association is the largest donor for the campaign against Proposition 66 - and that, critics say, shows opponents simply want to protect the jobs of those who guard three-strikes felons.

Early polling suggest voters may opt to change current law.

The most recent poll by the nonpartisan Field Institute, based on interviews with 500 likely voters in August, reported that 69 percent of respondents supported the proposition, with just 19 percent opposed. The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

---

On the Net:

Read the analysis of, arguments over Proposition 66: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/bp-nov04/prop-66-entire.pdf

The campaign for Proposition 66: http://www.yes66.org/

The campaign against Proposition 66: http://www.keep3strikes.org/