CALIFORNIA FOCUS
FOR RELEASE: TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2022 OR THEREAFTER
BY THOMAS D. ELIAS
“STATE
COMMITTEE THREATENS THREE-STRIKES LAW”
At the very
moment when Gov. Gavin Newsom and his appointed attorney general, Rob Bonta,
were talking tough on crime just after last fall’s wave of smash-and-grab
burglaries, an influential new state panel was plumping hard to soften
California’s signature law for getting tough on career criminals.
The first-in-the-nation
“three strikes and you’re out” law – passed with 72 percent approval as a
ballot initiative in 1994 – demands life in prison without possibility of
parole for convicted murderers. This does little to improve public safety, said
the new Committee on Revision of the Penal Code. It also drives up the prison
population and taxpayer costs, but has not quelled crime, the group contended.
The
committee’s recommendations stand a decent chance of becoming law as part of
the state’s decade-long effort to cut down the number of convicts it houses.
The panel
of five Newsom appointees and two legislators recommends repealing
three-strikes, despite the huge public vote for it and the fact there is no
evidence the sentiment behind that vote has ebbed.
Recognizing
the law itself cannot be repealed without another statewide vote, the group
instead suggested several alterations possible without consulting voters.
If that
happens, it would be yet another example of the Legislature trying to circumvent
the plainly expressed will of the voters. Other attempts in recent years have
included efforts to get around public votes against statewide rent control and
for retention of the cash bail system in state courts.
This
time, the panel suggests, legislators ought to rewrite three-strikes, which
requires a sentence of 25 years to life imprisonment for anyone convicted of a
third felony after two serious or violent crimes. The law now doubles terms for
“two-strikers,” criminals with a past serious or violent felony conviction
later found guilty of a second such offense.
Crimes
committed when those convicted were juveniles should no longer be counted as
“strikes,” the panel recommends. The group also suggested counting as strikes
only felonies committed in the past five years – even if the criminal spent
that time in prison, where committing such an offense is almost impossible.
“Many of
these people didn’t have a violent crime – maybe forging a check or drug use
years back,” said ultra-liberal Democratic state Sen. Nancy Skinner of
Berkeley, a panel member. She suggested to a reporter that even if the public
still supports severe penalties, “it’s important to have this conversation so
we can see if our thinking has changed. If we can see this didn’t work as
intended, we have the right to change it.”
Supporters
of three-strikes called the panel’s report “a complete farce.” Said Michele
Hanisee, president of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys of Los
Angeles County, “They’re trying … to make the worst killers eligible for
parole.”
Paraphrasing former Gov. Jerry
Brown, who repeatedly reversed proposed releases for members of the violently
perverse and murderous Charles Manson “Family,” she said, “Aren’t there some
crimes that are unforgivable?”
Still, the Newsom-dominated
commission said California’s most punitive laws have not worked. Prisons remain
overcrowded, the panel lamented, while severe sentencing has not greatly
affected crime rates.
The group pointedly did not
address the alleged effects of the 2014 Proposition 47, which removes any theft
or burglary amounting to less than $950 from the felony realm. In fact, serious
crime rates dropped for years after three-strikes became law, but began rising
again after 2014.
Several sheriffs and police
chiefs around the state blame Prop. 47’s limits for the rash of smash-and-grab
crimes late last year. Others blast the book-and-release policies for
misdemeanor suspects promoted by leftist district attorneys like Chesa Boudin
of San Francisco and George Gascon of Los Angeles County.
The fact the new report comes
from a panel composed of Newsom appointees and some of the Legislature’s most
liberal members causes some to question the sincerity of anti-crime rhetoric
delivered by Newsom and Bonta just after the spate of smash-and-grabs.
That
skepticism gets substance from the fact that most Newsom appointees – even to
statutorily independent agencies like the Public Utilities Commission –
consistently look to him and his leading aides for guidance on key decisions.
There is no reason to believe this committee is different.
-30-
Email Thomas Elias
at tdelias@aol.com. His book, "The Burzynski Breakthrough: The Most
Promising Cancer Treatment and the Government’s Campaign to Squelch It,"
is now available in a soft cover fourth edition. For more Elias columns, visit www.californiafocus.net
No comments:
Post a Comment