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.

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.

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.

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.

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)?

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.

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.

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.