Editorial: Three strikes insanity

Target repeat violent offenders, not thieves

Published 2:15 am PDT Friday, April 23, 2004

What's the appropriate punishment for a guy convicted of taking a $199 VCR from Sears in 1996 and for taking merchandise from a Lucky's grocery store and a K-Mart department store in 1991? Isaac Ramirez got 25-years-to-life for those crimes, which seems a grossly disproportionate punishment. That's what a federal district court ruled in 2002; the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision this week.

The federal courts made their decision on constitutional grounds - that the punishment violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." That was the right decision for that individual case. But the decision highlights a larger question for Californians about the state's "three strikes" law, the nation's harshest.

Is a 25-years-to-life sentence for nonviolent offenses a good use of taxpayer money? Each year an inmate spends in a state prison costs an average of $30,929. Is it worth that to keep nonviolent criminals off the streets? Does a 25-years-to-life sentence for nonviolent offenses advance public safety?

These aren't theoretical questions. The California Department of Corrections says that, as of September 2003, nonviolent offenses had triggered 25-years-to-life sentences for 57 percent of third-strikers serving those terms in California prisons.

The U.S. Justice Department's National Institute of Justice has written: "California, which is the only state to aggressively implement a 'three-strikes' law, has shown no superior reductions in crime rates." The Rand Corp. and the Justice Policy Institute also conclude that California's "three-strikes" law has had no significant effect on violent crime trends, in comparison with other states, such as New York, that do not have "three-strikes" laws.

The case of Isaac Ramirez brings into focus many of the issues regarding the "three-strikes" laws.

In May 1996, Ramirez walked out of a Sears department store with a $199 VCR. He surrendered to authorities without incident. This crime is a petty theft misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of six months in county jail. But Ramirez had two prior convictions for taking merchandise from a Lucky's grocery store and a K-Mart department store in 1991. No weapons were involved. But because the getaway car driven by another person ran over a security guard's foot in one incident, and Ramirez pushed a security guard with his open hand as he ran out of the store in the other incident, prosecutors charged him with second-degree robbery - defined as a "serious felony." For both crimes, he served a single sentence of six months and 20 days in county jail.

The questions seem obvious and so do some of the answers. Does it serve society's interest to have Ramirez serve jail time for stealing a VCR? Yes.

Does it serve society's interest to have him serve a longer term because he has two prior theft-related offenses? Yes.

Does it serve society's interest to give him a 25-years-to-life sentence for his crimes? The answer is not so clear cut, but on balance it seems to be no.

Putting away a three-time thief for 25-years-to-life costs at least $773,225. The state has made a commitment to pay this at a time when it is borrowing money to pay for essential services, cutting other services and telling 7,000 students eligible to attend the University of California and California State University that the state can't afford to accommodate them.

California needs to recalibrate its priorities. The "three-strikes" law should be reserved for repeat violent criminals. Here's hoping the U.S. Supreme Court allows the 9th Circuit decision to stand, thus forcing the Legislature and governor to set those priorities anew.