Three Strikes and You’re In!

In 2010, Stanford Law School delved into the aftermath of the three strikes law (three separate felony convictions generate a life sentence) passed by California voters in a flurry of anti-crime legislation that swept through the United States in the mid-1990s. Stanford wanted to know more about what kinds of inmates were now facing life sentences as a result (with a right of parole after 25 years). The study showed that in California alone, there were 4,000 non-violent inmates treading this time, a significant observation in a criminal justice system that seems to be defined more by its excesses than by any serious reduction in crime.

With about 5% of the world’s population, the United States still accounts for 25% of the world’s incarcerated prisoners. Long sentences, tough drug laws (a quarter of our inmates are dealers and users, but half of all convictions involve drugs at some level), death penalty cases and the three strikes legislation.

With the cost of housing one inmate spiraling to approximately an average $40,000 a year (much more for death row; see below), you’d think that at least we’d want to reduce the number of non-violent prisoners when we are struggling just to afford the litany of government costs we already have. Funny how neither party has embraced this rather obvious cost-savings… being tough on crime is in just about every political platform I’ve ever seen, and even candidates who understand the folly of our pattern of incarceration are scared to point out the obvious. But something’s gotta give, and California voters are getting another crack at this rather badly drafted and implemented legislation.

Documentary filmmakers, Kelly Duane de la Vega and Katie Galloway, recently filmed “[t]he case of Shane Taylor, [a three-strikes non-violent convict, which] is common in many ways, but also unusual in that his judge and prosecutor have gone on record saying that his sentence is unfair and should be modified. Under current law, revising a sentence after it has been imposed is nearly impossible. [They believe that a]lthough judges have sentencing discretion in a very narrow band of three-strikes cases, the reality is that judges almost universally consider themselves bound under California law to impose a life sentence for a third felony offense, no matter how minor…

“On Nov. 6, voters in California will decide whether to adopt Proposition 36, a ballot initiative that would reform the most draconian aspects of the law — and, in our view, restore the original intent of voters, which was to lock away violent career criminals for life, without unjustly throwing away the lives of small-time, nonviolent offenders like Mr. Taylor. Like most Californians, we believe that the punishment should fit the crime. We’re encouraged that polls show broad public support for the measure.” New York Times, October 8^th.

California voters will also have a shot at repealing the death penalty (Proposition 34), although that proposition appears to be trailing in the polls. But the costs of this extreme sentence are horrifically high as well. “California has spent more than $4 billion on capital punishment since it was reinstated in 1978 (about $308 million for each of the 13 executions carried out)… California spends an additional $184 million on the death penalty per year because of the additional costs of capital trials, enhanced security on death row, and legal representation.” Deathpenalty.org. When I hear politicians scream that we need to live on what we can afford, and then I hear about the increases they want in defense spending or all the new prisons they want to build, I just wonder if these folks actually passed their basic arithmetic classes in elementary school!

I’m Peter Dekom, and there are real series of options we can embrace and even improve our society… while still reducing our absurd deficits… but that would take common sense.