Since California instituted the "Three Strikes You're Out" criminal sentencing scheme 10 years ago, thousands of defendants have received 25-year to life sentences, without the possibility of parole, for petty, non-violent crimes. That is not what California's voters intended in passing Three Strikes, and it is costing the State hundreds of millions of dollars to incarcerate (and waste the lives of) non-dangerous offenders.
On November 2, Californians will vote on Proposition 66, a measure to reform Three Strikes so that it would only apply to those who committed specified sex crimes or crimes of violence. Two thirds of California voters support Prop 66, and it has broad support among both Democrats and Republicans.
Jeff at SoCalLawBlog, who is against Prop 66, has posted a criticism of it and invited other California law bloggers to debate him. Continue reading this post to read my (rather long, technical and wonkish) response:
UPDATE (10/17): The Los Angeles Times endorses Proposition 66.
Here's what Proposition 66 does, according to the California Attorney General (who, by the way, officially opposes it):
- Amends "Three Strikes" law to require increased sentences only when current conviction is for specified violent and/or serious felony.
- Redefines violent and serious felonies. Only prior convictions for specified violent and/or serious felonies, brought and tried separately, would qualify for second and third "strike" sentence increases.
- Allows conditional re-sentencing of persons with sentences increased under "Three Strikes" law if previous sentencing offenses, resulting in the currently charged felony/felonies, would no longer qualify as violent and/or serious felonies.
- Increases punishment for specified sex crimes against children.
But SoCalLawBlog wrote:
Ambiguity in the text of a ballot measure that would soften the nation's toughest three-strikes law might free thousands more California prisoners than supporters have advertised. . . .
[W]hat many voters might not realize is that a single phrase in the reform measure could lead to the release of 26,000 prisoners overall - almost 16 percent of the inmate population. . . .
[T]he phrase in question, appearing deep inside the 20-page measure, says sentence reductions are "not limited to" third strikers serving life terms for an offense that would no longer be considered a strike under the proposed changes.
I disagree with the analysis in your post.
First, though the "not limited to" language is "deep inside" the Proposition, it is hardly "buried," as your post implies. In fact, it appears in the first sentence of the section entitled "SEC. 11. Release of Qualified Individuals." (The full text of Prop 66 is here.)
Second, I don't see the ambiguity that your post seems to be concerned about. The section in question says, in part:
Any individual sentenced under the prior Three Strikes law, including, but not limited to, paragraph (2) of subdivision (e) of Section 667 of the Penal Code [part of three strikes], paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 1170.12 of the Penal Code [part of three strikes], and/or Section 707 of the Welfare and
Institutions Code [three strikes for minors tried as adults], for an enhanced conviction that would not qualify for enhancement under this statute, shall qualify for resentencing and be remanded to the court of origin for resentencing, subject to the following conditions:
Each of the "conditions" that follow includes:
The currently charged felony resulting in the imposition of an indeterminate term of life in prison was not described as a violent or serious felony pursuant to this act.
My plain English translation of this is: "Any individual sentenced under the prior Three Strikes law, including, but not limited to certain specified parts of the prior Three Strikes law, will qualify for resentencing if the felony resulting in the imposition of an indeterminate term of life in prison was not described as a violent or serious felony pursuant to this act."
In other words, if the defendant received a life sentence for a non-violent, non-sexual offense under the old Three Strikes law, and if that offense is not part of the new Three Strikes law, then the defendant qualifies for resentencing.
I don't see any ambiguity there, or any secret way for defense attorneys to exploit the phrase "not limited to" to expand the class of offenders eligible for resentencing beyond what the plain language of the Proposition seems to indicate.
Am I missing something?
And by the way, it is misleading for opponents of Proposition 66 to say things like "it will free thousands of criminals now in California prisons and put them back on the streets." That makes it sound like violent criminals will swarm out of the prisons in huge numbers on November 3rd, which is not true.
Before anyone goes free, he or she will have to be resentenced by a judge in a court of law where a prosecutor will be present to argue against any sentence reduction.
It is also misleading for opponents to say that Prop 66 will "cost millions." While it probably will "cost millions" to process all the wrongfully sentenced defendants through new sentencing hearings, the result will be a savings of hundreds of millions of dollars from the resulting reduced prison population.
Proposition 66 is a good measure. It eliminates the worst, unintended consequences of California's original Three Strikes law, while still putting (and keeping) violent or sexual re-offenders away for good. Vote for Prop 66.