That doesn’t do much for my opinion of three strikes, but it does bring into question the intent or judgment of those who seek to amend the law. This suggests that they are trying to undo three strikes in spirit if not absolutely.

That said, one question (or set of questions) comes to mind: what is the purpose of three strikes?

If the purpose is to lock up criminals who have engaged in crime sprees, then the question of whether charges are “brought and tries separately” is irrelevant. After all, the manner in which the criminal was prosecuted is just a technicality.

However, if the intent is to lock up habitual offenders, then the question is important, because a habitual offender is far more likely to have had charges “brought and tried separately.”

If, on the other hand, the intent is just to cover for weak sentencing laws on serious crimes, then we need to fix the original laws, not rely on three strikes for that.

Instead of three strikes, I’d like to see the law amended to allow for far harsher penalties for progressively worse criminals. Unfortunately, the law doesn’t provide a mechanism for that - or at least not one that accomplishes the job - so, for now, three strikes is the best we’ve got.

The latter category may not be strictly “violent” people. It includes people who are doing “life on the installment plan” — they spend most of their life in prison, but a few years at a time. For example, a career burglar who breaks into people’s homes, and never manages to go a single calendar year out of custody without a new crime or a new violation of probation or parole.

At a minimum, as to the former category, it clearly should not matter whether the person’s violent crimes are prosecuted in a single trial or multiple trials.