November 10th, 2009
posted by Teri Sforza, Register staff writer
You’ve heard that California’s prison system is reeling under the weight of the nation’s toughest Three Strikes law - which its employee union fervently backed, and which has swelled California prisons to their breaking point.
More than 15 years after voters approved it, California’s three strikes law continues to be highly controversial, and its fault lines were recently explored in a three-part series by National Public Radio.
Erwin Chemerinsky (pictured right), dean of UC Irvine’snew law school, is featured in the series. Chemerinsky was the attorney for Leandro Andrade, who was put away for 50 years to life after stealing videotapes from two different Kmart stores. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that a sentence of 50 years to life for shoplifting was cruel and unusual punishment; but the Supreme Court overturned that ruling on a 5-to-4 vote, concluding that Andrade’s sentence was not disproportionate because there was still the possibility of parole (though not until he’s 87).
- The series starts here, with an introdcution.
- The first part, “Two Torn Families Show Flip Side Of 3 Strikes Law,” is here.
- The second part, “Crime Locale Is Key In California’s 3 Strikes Law,” is here.
- The last part, “Cases Show Disparity Of California’s 3 Strikes Law, is here.
The basic problem, in many folks’ eyes, is that California’s law doubles the penalty for a second felony if the first felony was serious or violent; and the third strike – which carries a mandatory prison sentence of 25 years to life – does not have to be a serious or violent crime.
About two dozen states have similar laws, NPR notes, but only California counts any felony as a third strike, not just a serious or violent one. Voters came close to changing that in 2004, when a ballot initiative mandating that the third strike be a violent or serious crime was overwhelmingly ahead in the polls just 10 days before the election.
That, NPR notes, is when Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s commercials against the change began airing. But it fails to note that those commercials were bankrolled by OC billionaire bad boy Henry T. Nicholas III to the tune of $3.5 million.
The ballot measure failed, but expect to see more challenges to the law in the future.
Source: OC Register
As stated in the September 10 article in the O.C. Register titled “Is California’s prison system a money-sucking mess?” http://taxdollars.freedomblogging.com/2009/09/10/californias-prison-system-is-a-money-sucking-mess-auditors-report-says/35687/, the entire system is completely out of sync in every imaginable way.
To quote from David Dayen, http://www.calitics.com/diary/9859/the-stakes-of-the-upcoming-prison-policy-fight,
“California’s prisons were once the envy of the nation, too. Then the Tough On Crime crowd got a hold of the levers of power, produced 1,000 laws expanding sentences over 30 years, pushed the public to do the same through ballot initiatives, increased parole sanctions, and the system just got swamped. In the early 1980s we had 20,000 prisoners. Now it’s 170,000. The overcrowding decimates rehabilitation, sends nonviolent offenders into what amounts to a college for violent crime, violates prisoner rights by denying proper medical care, and increases costs at every point along the way.”
And what is the fuel of the engine which has driven this runaway train of laws and punishments which have resulted in the current prison mess?
Primarily the CCPOA:
http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/centers/scjc/workingpapers/BCarassco-wp4_06.pdf
This paper by Stanford Law Professor Dr. Joan Petersilia spells it out clearly.
It boils down to money. Money has dictated what politicians get in office, which laws they support, and what they refuse to change.
With the current fiscal problems in California, and the Three Judge Court, the chickens are beginning to come home to roost.
The real concern at this point is just how far are these three judges willing to go? It is always a concern when one group of taxpayer funded minds considers punishing another group supported by the same taxpayers.
By: Jacob on November 11, 2009
at 10:56 pm