XRLQ links to this Orange County Register piece (registration required) on the divided pere et fils Klaas. As anyone who has watched television this week in the Golden State knows, Marc and Joe Klaas are on opposite sides of Proposition 66, which would reform the Three Strikes Felony initiative. The father, Joe (who lives part-time in my hometown of Carmel) supports amending the law; his son Marc is adamently opposed. They lost their daughter and granddaughter, Polly, a decade ago to kidnap and murder.
Obviously, I’m with Papa Joe on this one. But it’s positively painful to see these two men appear in television spots opposing each other. It’s far more painful to read how much bitterness there is between them, though the Register article makes clear that it’s fairly one-sided:
Fury still burns in the hearts of her father and grandfather, but they’ll find no consolation in each other this year. Polly’s dad, Marc Klaas, curses his own father, Joe Klaas. “I can’t even believe the (expletive),” said Marc Klaas, raging. “This was his choice, to put his personal interest above our family. I begged him not to, and he wouldn’t listen. I’m ready to punch the (expletive)’s lights out.”
The elder Klaas sighed deeply. “Marc is a good man,” Joe Klaas said. “He’s angry, and he has a right to be. But most victims want revenge.”
Joe Klaas said he wants justice.
It gets worse:
Marc Klaas has kicked his father off the board of directors of the family foundation. He has forbidden his father from uttering Polly’s name.
“I’m not mad at him,” Joe Klaas said. In the long run, “I think it’ll be all right.”
His son feels otherwise.
“My (expletive) father decided he wanted to put prisoners back on the streets. He wanted to use my daughter’s legacy to repopulate crap into society,” Marc Klaas said. “I can’t even believe the (expletive). Are we going to make up? No. Are you kidding me? He has engaged in an effort to return violence to the streets. I think this is unforgivable.”
The bold emphases are mine.
We all cope with tragedy differently. But there is no question that one of these two grieving men has turned his grief to a crusade for justice, and the other for vengeance. I cannot imagine what it would be like to lose someone I loved to violence. I would hope, however, that Christ would bring me a spirit closer to that of Joe than of Marc, closer to reconciliation and forgiveness than enduring rage and resentment. If I had any doubts about the wisdom of voting yes on 66, the different attitudes of this father and this son make it explicit that this is a choice between fear and faith, between resentment and forgiveness, between revenge and justice, between blind rage and common sense.
I’m praying for Joe Klaas. I’m praying for Marc Klaas. I’m praying for healing and reconciliation in this family that has already lost so much. And I’m damn sure voting “yes” on 66 next Tuesday.
Because Marc is bitter doesn’t mean Marc’s issue is wrong. Mind, I admit when I was first considering the justice or otherwise of the War in Iraq, it was watching the Peace demonstrations which made me a rather uneasy Hawk. They were the most un-Peaceful lot I’ve come across, and that includes quite a few Evangelical Congregational Meetings, so perhaps there might be something to be said for your argument.
Three strikes is a terrible law, when it puts people away for minor, nonviolent felonies. Violent offenses? Sure.
But freakin’ sports metaphors?
Sure there is. Marc Klaas wants justice, and I don’t blame him for that. Joe Klaas wants lenience, and is willing to alienate his own son to boost his ego, even while lie through his teeth about many of the basic facts of the three strikes law, including his own history with it. What is so damned “spiritual” about that?
Make no mistake about it, if Prop 66 passes, at least 4,200 - and possibly as many as 26,000 - extremely violent and dangerous criminals will get out, soon. Many of them will go on to rape, murder or otherwise victimize more innocent people. Each time, Marc Klaas will say “thanks, Dad” to his self-indulgent father, assuming the two of them are even speaking then. And he’ll be right. Pray all you want for the Klaas family, but unless Prop 66 goes down, I don’t think they have a prayer.
It’s pretty easy to pass judgement when you’re on the outside looking in. It’s easier to show compassion for Joe than for Marc, because you agree with Joe.
I probably shouldn’t be in this conversation, because I don’t live in California and don’t know all the ins and outs of Prop 66, but reading this, my take on Marc is different. He is reliving his daughter’s murder, and is being forced to do this in public. He is grieving. And he feels betrayed. That shouldn’t be too hard to understand. Sure, he feels rage….justifiable rage. It’s not “blind rage.”
It almost seems to me like you’re insinuating that he isn’t as good a Christian because he feels rage towards his daughter’s murderer, and a system that he feels is going to abandon his daughter. That’s not your call to make.
See, grief used to be considered a private matter. Now, you’re up for grabs….intimate, unspeakable details are there for public consumption….violence as entertainment. And now to top it off, cameras are being thrust in the faces of this family as fodder for political debate. Add to this unsavory mix, the “real Christian” litmus test….are you able to smile and say, “I forgive you” to your daughter’s murderer? You’re right about one thing Hugo, you do have no idea how you would react.
Meanwhile, I’m calling bullshit on the idea that rage is never justified. That being a Christian is supposed to preclude rage. That certain thoughts or feelings are supposed to be off limits to “the real Christian” (note: I said thoughts and feelings, not actions). Not everyone is able to smile and lie to the camera. There are few people capable of that level of forgiveness. That’s one of the reasons we bother to have laws to begin with…to keep blood feuds at bay.
“If I had any doubts about the wisdom of voting yes on 66, the different attitudes of this father and this son make it explicit that this is a choice between fear and faith, between resentment and forgiveness, between revenge and justice, between blind rage and common sense.”
Yet this has nothing to do with the efficacy of the law, does it? Is his rage so blind? Is voting yes “common sense?” There’s nothing in their response that would indicate to me a hard argument for or agains 66. I have a daughter — if she were stolen and murdered I would, like you, hope for a spirit of grace and forgiveness but rage is not, necessarily, an improper response.
A polis which exhibits only grace and forgivness will not stand long — which is not to argue that individual Christians should not.
Zuzu: Take a look at five of the “nonviolent” offenders Prop 66 would release, and then tell me if you still think three strikes is such a bad law. I will not object to a new initiative changing its name only, to remove the sports metaphor. “Three felonies, at least two of which are really nasty, and you’re in” works just as well for me.
Where Marc Klaas steps outside the faith (and I have a feeling that they are Jewish, so the point may be moot) is when he says what his father has done is unforgivable.
No Christian can ever, ever, ever say those words. Of that I am as close to certain as anything else in my faith.
Forgiveness is not incompatible with punishment, by the way. Joe Klaas is not saying, let the murderers walk. He’s arguing that the punishment should fit very specific violent crimes.
He is not mad at his son, despite his son’s acrimony — is he nuts? Is he insensitive? Or is he, perhaps, in some way, a man of more mature faith as well as age.
Look, I’m voting for Prop 66 on its merits. The Klaas story, sadly, helps me understand the emotion that undergirds both positions.
Oh - XRLQ, I’m damned sure I live in a poorer, higher crime area than you do, judging by what I know of your address — I’ll be the one to live with the released felons. Maybe it’s the bravado of the childless man with good homeowner’s insurance, but I’m at peace with living among those who are the beneficiaries of second, third, and 97th chances.
“No Christian can ever, ever, ever say those words.”
Pardon me, Hugo, but who died and made you God? That’s some rush to judgement. Isn’t that something that we critique the ‘right’ for doing? If there’s one thing I’m sure about in my faith, it’s that we don’t see with the eyes of God. And that we’re not capable of the same insight into the heart, the same insight into pain, as God is. Nor are we capable of the same level of compassion.
Yes, Christians can and do use those words, and many others. Christians can and do commit crimes. Christians can and do commit sin. But for you to take this man’s words….the words of a man who is feeling unspeakable pain, this man whose pain is being made into a public spectacle, and go as far as to say he’s outside the faith (which, indeed, he may be…he may be of a different faith)…nope, sorry Hugo, not your call to make. Or mine.
The whole forgiveness thing….it’s like a talk-show phenomenon. Forgiveness used to be something we would pray for…that we would someday be capable of honestly giving. Something that we realized would take many, many years. Something that we realized we many never be able to achieve. It used to be recognized as something to try for.
But no, not now. Now we’re supposed to merrily chirp “I forgive yous”, regardless of authenticity. It’s supposed to be a phrase that immediately trips off the tongue with ease, the faster the better. Especially for the cameras. Bah.
Now we’re supposed to merrily chirp “I forgive yous”, regardless of authenticity.
I thought we’d moved right past that into the “Never apologize, never explain” post-Gingrich phase?
X, because some “nonviolent” offenders are in fact violent doesn’t change the fact that the “nonviolent” part of the law is going to result in people getting life sentences for repeated non-violent drug offenses. If these laws weren’t written with such a vindictive eye, I would consider them. But tell me that a two-bit pot dealer should spend a lifetime in prison because crime is crime is crime, and watch the expression of disbelief set in.
Sheesh, people, “In Jesus Christ, we are forgiven.” Thanks be to God!
That’s what Hugo’s talking about, I believe.
Such division in a family is sad, but I don’t live in CA and know nothing about this proposed amendment, so that’s all I’ll say.
All I’m saying, is that neither Joe nor Marc Klass should be media pawns to push a political agenda. Argue the point on its own merit, but don’t hold poor Marc Klass up as some kind of failure of humanity because he is feeling and voicing immense pain and betrayal. It’s asking too much to expect him to react any other way than how he is! That wound is too fresh. Too damn fresh, capisce? And we, outsiders to this family looking in, have know way of knowing how the family would have reconciled their views with one another had this not been in the public eye.
One person’s justice is another’s revenge, you know?
La Lubu, no one dragged Marc Klaas into the public eye. He gave up his right to privacy when he made TV ads, shaking with rage. He gave up his right to privacy after the 10th appearance on Larry King. He has turned his personal tragedy into a public policy crusade –and for that reason, his motives are open to question. Had he silently seethed, then of course his grief would be respected.
We must forgive, yeah, even seventy times seven. That’s the gospel, not Oprah.
What Hugo said about privacy. And frankly, assuming they’re both doing what they think is best for the future of California, I applaud them for “selling out” their privacy. Persuading people to help you make the world a better place is a more important good.
And look: this is obviously an important and serious public policy issue, but it remains a public policy issue nevertheless. Without commenting on the Christian Ethics of the whole thing, for which I am wholly unqualified, I think the “unforgivable” line would be understandable if his father had actually killed his daughter, but disagreeing about the wisdom of an initiative? Please. We disagree with loved ones about major policy initiative that impact (and cost) many thousands of lives. And we still manage to live together and have a society. The approach we see here is entirely inappropriate. It’s not a question of rage (which is not necessarily inappropriate), it’s a question of what is done with it.
Did Marc Klass make the first TV ads, or did he do that in response to ads that his father made? I’m asking because I really don’t know. Not living in California, I haven’t seen any ads.
I just feel that the complex issue of forgiveness has been damaged by the culture of instant gratification. Now, a person is expected to immediately mouth the words “I forgive you”, regardless of truth. That is the current socially expected verbal dance step. And forgiveness ought to be recognized as more than that. The new-agey rapid-fire version of forgiveness is cheapening what the reality of forgiveness actually consists of. Bona-fide forgiveness is a long, hard road that takes a long time to travel. Critizing Marc Klass for not having reached that destination is an easy call; it’s his daughter that’s in the ground, you know? I just didn’t care for the phrasing in the original post. It seemed to set up a “good Klass/bad Klass” picture, and that’s just ugly. And the situation is ugly enough as it stands. Real forgiveness is neither fast nor easy for the average human being. Perhaps Joe Klass is a real spiritual giant, and has reached this point. But calling out his son for not having reached that point is cruel.
And also, the idea of forgiveness is open to exploitation by those who have no intention of making amends for wrongdoing. I’m a old-fashioned bleeding heart liberal too, but I have no intention of letting my blood run dry, understand? Don’t get me wrong, I’m a believer in forgiveness…I just don’t want to see the concept watered down. It’s easy to say those words. I’m of the opinion that one ought to believe those words, to the core of one’s being, before they are said, ok?
Yes, the gospel is clear on forgiveness. But the TV culture has cheapened the idea. You’ll have a hard time convincing me that it hasn’t. Talk show confessions are custom-made to go with talk show redemptions…all for public entertainment. I ain’t goin’ for it. Not everybody climbs that particular Mt. Everest.
The first Google definition of “unforgivable” is “not excusable.” This fits with my impression of how the word is commonly used. Marc may have been just saying “There is no legitimate rationale for his position… no conceivable excuse for his thinking that way” rather than “I will never forgive him for coming out for Prop. 66.”
We Christians, who have a big old frame of reference involving forgiveness and unforgivableness, would probably want to avoid using the word that way, both because we’re commanded to forgive, and because that usage denies the fact that forgiveness only operates when there’s no excuse. But the Princeton definition really does square with how I’m hearing the word employed lately.
Hugo, honoring one’s family members is a two-way street. Aside from the merits of 66, seeing Prop 184 gutted probably makes Marc Klaas feel as though his daughter were being murdered all over again, this time by grandpa. Joe Klaas knows this, yet forges ahead anyway, even to the point of trading on the family name to promote an agenda that is 180 degrees from the one traditionally associated with that name. And to top it off, he falsely claims to have promoted the original initiative (both Klaases opposed it at the time), and also lies about what voters thought they were voting on (the shoplifting example appeared in the SOS’s voter guide). Of course Joe isn’t mad at Marc; he’s got no reason to be.
And spare me the “I live where the crime is” card. It has nothing to do with the merits of Prop 66, but FWIW, I grew up in Altadena, and have lived in several rough areas at variuous stages of my life since. I’m fortunate to live in a low-crime area now, but I haven’t forgotten where I came from. True, the increased risks of these newly released thugs may be higher for you than for me, but so what? You’re not just taking on the risk yourself, you are voting to endanger EVERYBODY. I’m not OK with people who drive drunk, either, even if they agree to only drive drunk in neighborhoods I never frequent myself.
Amanda, the only way a “two-bit pot dealer” can get 25-to life is if his first two offenses were much more serious than that. One murder, one rape and one “two-bit pot dealing” might earn him an enhanced sentence, but three pot sales won’t. If you think the law should be modified to allow three free rapes rather than two, that’s your preorogative, but Prop 66 goes far beyond that.
One murder, one rape and one “two-bit pot dealing” might earn him an enhanced sentence
Actually, two drug crimes would do it, too.
I don’t support Prop 66 because it’s a mess, but I also don’t support throwing people in jail for petty crime.
that should be “in jail for life,” by the way.
Off topic a tiny bit sorry…
XLRQ: Altadena is lovely! I’d loathe to call it a “rough area” or high crime. Perhaps things have changed dramatically since you lived there. Although, you might not find it much improved, what with all the Kerry signs out on the front lawns (with nary a Bush sign to be seen!) ;P
Of course one might say that Altadena’s idyllic nature (however new it may be) would be ruined by the passing of prop 66, and that it is the practical Nirvana that it is now *because* of the three strikes law. But I doubt it.
Still, admittedly, and all joking and facetiousness aside, 66 is a pretty hard one. Send kids to prison for for smoking a little pot and stealing a car? Or set rapists free? It’s just so grey. Can’t there be some other kind of reform so that it doesn’t let the really bad guys (and gals) out (like the icky guy XLRQ linked to)?
The law doesn’t “allow” for any crimes, xlrq. I remain unable to trust that these laws will be written with anything resembling common sense, as I know that the major motivating factors are unrealistic fear and racism.
Mythago, I don’t know where you get your information from, but you’re wrong. Ordinary drug dealing is not a “violent” or “serious” felony, and therefore cannot form the basis of a sentence enhancement as either a first or second strike. The only exceptions are certain crimes involving the furnishing of certain “hard” drugs to minors. That crime is just like that of a two-bit pot dealer in all respects except two: it’s not two-bit, and the drug is much worse than pot. And that crime will remain a strike even after Prop 66, while such silly, harmless felonies as burglary, arson, gang crimes and involuntary vehicular homicide will not be.
Kelly, East Altadena is lovely, but Altadena generally is not. Its schools (Pasadena’s) are awful, and West Altadena can be quite rough. You’re right that there aren’t too many Bush signs on the lawn there. Sr. Xrlq had one in his front yard, but it didn’t last long.
As to “send[ing] kids to prison for for smoking a little pot and stealing a car,” that’s a myth. Smoking a little pot, or even doing a lot of crack, is not generally a felony, and therefore cannot be prosecuted even as a third strike. Frankly, I don’t think the law needs reforming, but if it does, the answer is yes, there can be a more reasonable, measured reform. Prop 66 just ain’t it.
Amanda, you may choose to believe that our common-sense crime law is “motivated by unrealistic fear and racism,” but your belief is not knowledge. In fact, in this case it is demonstrably false. The two incidents that played the biggest role in enacting three strikes were the very real murders of Kimber Reynolds and Polly Klaas, both by very real thugs with long rap sheets, and both of whom should have been behind bars all along. Race was not a factor in either murder, nor in the debate that followed.
Prop 66 just ain’t it.
I agree. That is, however, a far cry from saying the law is peachy as is.
The only exceptions are certain crimes involving the furnishing of certain “hard” drugs to minors
Or “precusors” to those drugs, interestingly. So a 17-year-old who, with his friends, agrees to buy ‘dexies’ for a rave can be tried as an adult, then sentences under conspiracy to distribute those drugs to minors.
But hypotheticals aside, the problem is that there is no time limit, or consideration of the seriousness of the third (or, correct me if I’m wrong, the second) felony. A two-time felon who goes straight for twenty years, then steals $150 worth of avocadoes from an orchard, is now eligible for ‘three strikes.’
More practically, though, I am concerned about prosecutorial discretion on deciding whether to sentence under three strikes. Of course we want the really bad guys to rot in jail (or be put to death), but we all know how impartial *those* processes are.
You are right that it is theoretically possible for a two-time hard core felon to go straight for 20 years, and then get a third strike conviction over a relatively minor offense. However, this is an instance where theory and practice diverge. In practice, few if any prosecutors would try something that outrageous, and if they did, the judge would have discretion to through out the third strike charge in the interests of justice. In fact, in a case that egregious, the judge would probably get reversed on appeal if he didn’t.
Case in point: “Pizza Man,” probably the most infamous alleged abuse of the three strikes law, has actually been a free man for several years now. Ironically, unlike many more egregious third strikers, he might not be free if Prop 66 had passed while his appeals were pending. The one good thing about the resentencing provision is that it requries the defendant to waive double jeopardy as to the final offense. In his case, the double-jeopardy waiver would have given the D.A. a second chance to go after his real offense (robbery) rather than the one he was charged and convicted for (petty larceny, upgraded to a felony because of his priors).
Note that I’ve never argued that the three strikes law is perfect and could not stand any changes. It certainly can, only much more modest ones than are being proposed here. On the one hand, I think the definitions of “violent” and “serious” should probably be expanded a bit, to include other offenses that are in fact violent and/or serious, but which are currently are not treated that way under the law. For example, four of the five above examples have such “nonviolent” third offenses as extreme animal cruelty, possession of a deadly weapon with criminal intent, one convicted pedophile exposing himself to kids on a schoolyard, and another attempting to buy a young boy. All four of these offenses are “nonviolent” and “non-serious” offenses for purposes of the three strikes law, which cannot be used as underlying “strikes” against a subsequent conviction. I think they should be.
On the other, I think the law does overreach just a tad when it comes to “wobblers,” i.e., crimes that are ordinarily considered misdemeanors, but which can get upgraded to felonies based on one’s priors. If it were up to me, the third strike would not have to be a “violent” or “serious” felony, but it would have to be a felony that qualifies as a felony on its own merits, or at least without relying on the same prior offenses that are also being counted as strikes. I don’t know how much of a difference that would make in practice, however, as most third strikers have a lot more than three crimes under their belt. Baseball umps are required to call you “out” after the third strike. Prosecutors and judges are not, and often don’t.
In practice, few if any prosecutors would try something that outrageous, and if they did, the judge would have discretion to through out the third strike charge in the interests of justice.
As with capital cases, that discretion, and whether it’s considered abuse, varies enormously by jurisdiction.
We’re not really disagreeing here–I believe the law needs reform, but I think 66 is the wrong way.