Three Strikes Quiz: Question Four
Today is Question Four of my quiz revealing disturbing aspects of the initiative to eviscerate amend the Three Strikes law.
Question One revealed how 13 murder convictions could be treated as only one strike prior under the amended law. Question Two showed how the initiative could result in a lenient prison sentence for seemingly violent crimes — even those committed by people with criminal histories as violent as that of Charlie Manson. Question Three showed how the law as amended probably would not have prevented the murder of Polly Klaas by Richard Allen Davis — the event that caused the law to be passed in the first place.
Today’s question describes several crimes committed by a hypothetical defendant, and asks how many strikes he would earn through his violent conduct.
Question Four:
Our defendant, a gang member, attempts to break into your house while you are asleep. As he is trying to pry open your front door with a crowbar, he is attacked by your dog, which he strangles to death with his bare hands.
The defendant then goes next door to your neighbor’s house. He breaks in looking for something to steal to buy drugs. He does not encounter your neighbor, who is on vacation. The defendant vandalizes the inside of your neighbor’s house with gang graffiti, and then returns to your driveway and steals your car.
The defendant then drives straight to his local drug dealer and gets high on PCP. He gets back in the car and heads for the mountains. Due to his being under the influence of PCP, he crosses the double-yellow line and causes a head-on collision which leaves the other driver paralyzed.
Defendant jumps out of the car and runs into the forest, where he decides to set a forest fire. It is fire season, and he hopes to create a massive fire which will be highly publicized. Accordingly, he starts fires in four different places. A large section of forest is soon engulfed in flames. Luckily, the blaze dies out before anyone is hurt or any property is destroyed.
A police officer sees the defendant setting the fires, and attempts to arrest the defendant. Defendant punches the officer in the face, knocking him down. He then leads the officer on a high-speed chase lasting three hours. During the chase, the defendant drives the wrong way on the freeway for five miles, at speeds of over 100 miles per hour. Several cars spin out of control, and multiple motorists receive injuries ranging from bruises and scratches to more serious injuries such as concussions and broken bones. One motorist goes into a coma.
Defendant manages to evade police, and returns to his gang lair, where he and his fellow gang members form a plan to stab a rival gang member. As he steps out of the gang hideout, defendant sees the targeted victim. He starts throwing gang signs and yells threats to kill the rival gang member.
Your question: if convicted of all of the above crimes, in separate trials brought separately, how many strikes will the defendant earn:
a) under current law?
b) under the law as amended by the upcoming initiative?
a) Under current law, defendant would earn at least eight strikes, including: attempted residential burglary; residential burglary; the DUI causing injury (because he personally caused great bodily injury to another); arson; evading a peace officer (causing great bodily injury to several people); conspiracy to commit assault with a deadly weapon; the commission of crimes for the benefit of a street gang, and criminal death threats.
(His crimes which have never been considered strikes include animal cruelty, vandalism, grand theft auto, PCP possession, being under the influence of PCP, simple assault on a peace officer, resisting a peace officer, and evading a peace officer in a motor vehicle. Some of these crimes are not even felonies.)
b) Under the law as amended, defendant would not earn any strikes for the above-described violent behavior. This is because many crimes currently considered serious or violent under current law will be reclassified as non-strikes by the initiative. These crimes include:
- any residential burglary where the residence is unoccupied;
- any attempted burglary, even of an occupied residence;
- crimes in which the defendant personally causes great bodily injury to another in the commission of a felony — as long as the defendant does not specifically intend that injury;
- arson, as long as nobody suffers great bodily injury and no buildings are destroyed;
- felonies committed for the benefit of a street gang;
- conspiracy to commit any assault; and
- criminal threats of death or great bodily injury.
See? All they want to do is restrict 25-to-life sentences to people who commit serious or violent felonies! Oh — and also, they want to reclassify every crime under the sun as non-serious and non-violent.
Is it starting to become obvious to you that this bill was drafted by defense attorneys, for defense attorneys (and their clients)?
P.S. Enough with the quizzes. Tomorrow, I will discuss the provision for resentencing anyone in prison for 25-to-life who would not be eligible for such a sentence under the amended law. When you put this provision together with the many nonsensical rules I have discussed over the past several days, the conclusion is obvious: many violent people will be released if this initiative passes. Specific examples will be given tomorrow.
On Sunday, I will post a full critique of the new law.
Three Strikes “Reform”
Anyone considering voting for the initiative to water down three strikes should take Patterico’s quiz. Questions 1 and 2 are up now. More will follow. UP
Trackback by damnum absque injuria — 4/2/2004 @ 7:11 am
L.A. D.A. Cooley speaks out
At the Los Angeles Chamber, District Attorney Steve Cooley spoke out on a number of issues this morning, including a proposed initiative to reform California’s “Three Strikes” law. The Republican highlighted three important initiatives his office is ta…
Trackback by BoiFromTroy — 4/2/2004 @ 9:41 am
I must be missing something here - why would ANYONE want to modify the Three Strikes law like this? I can’t understand that. Surely you’re not the only person to think of a scenario like this.
Why would anyone in their right mind support the bill, defense attorney or not??
Comment by Laudio — 4/2/2004 @ 9:55 am
The initiative is being sold as a way to prevent a recurrence of cases like the legendary pizza “theft” (really a robbery). Never mind that the pizza guy had a bad record. Never mind that he was already resentenced to a more lenient term, and is not serving life.
People don’t really understand the law, and think that any three felonies, no matter how minor, can trigger a 25-to-life sentence. Some even think this result is automatic (it is not, but is rather subject to prosecutorial and judicial discretion). And they’re not reading the fine print.
Comment by Patterico — 4/2/2004 @ 12:07 pm
Okay, so the guy doesn’t get any strikes. What sort of sentence would he get for this rampage? If he gets a long enough sentence, the strikes would seem moot.
Comment by betty — 4/2/2004 @ 12:53 pm
It’s funny how the “reformers” seem so convinced that voters really thought they were voting for a “three separate violent offenses and you’re sort-of out” law. A couple years back, I conducted my own unscientific poll of non-lawyers to see what they thought the three strikes law was all about. A plurality believed all felonies were strikes. That plurality turned to an overwhelming majority as soon as you combined them with the group that thought all misdemeanors counted, as well.
Comment by Xrlq — 4/2/2004 @ 2:45 pm
Betty,
For an example of someone who went on several violent rampages and still got out of prison, see my discussion of Richard Allen Davis from yesterday.
I made it a rampage for dramatic effect, but if you prefer, you can pick just one of the above crimes and ask yourself: it is appropriate for this not to be a strike?
For example: take someone who has prior strikes for rape and armed robbery. He evades police in a high-speed chase as described above, leaving an innocent citizen in a coma. Under the terms of the initiative, he can’t get more than five or six years. With the strike law (as it currently stands), he can get 25-to-life — which he richly deserves.
Comment by Patterico — 4/2/2004 @ 3:26 pm
I’d like to pass a “if police savagely beat a suspect who is later convicted, they are imminue to any liability” initiative.
It’d drive the anti-justice people nuts.
Comment by The Angry Clam — 4/2/2004 @ 7:09 pm
Betty, I think you’ve got a legitimate question. The goal is to lock up the criminal who has engaged in these activities, not to ensure that it happens under three strikes.
So the crimes are, chronologically, burglary, vandalism, B&E, animal cruelty, burglary, vandalism, use of a controlled substance, DUI, reckless driving, leaving the scene of an accident, starting a forest fire, starting another forest fire, starting another forest fire, starting forest fire, and starting another forest fire, assault and battery on a peace officer, evading arrest, reckless driving, and conspiracy to commit murder. (Some may be misstated, I’m approximating here)
So, what is the minimum period of time that the criminal would spend in jail, assuming convictions of all these crimes? This is important, because if convictions in all of these crimes results in jail time of at least 25 years, then three strikes becomes irrelevant.
Comment by bob — 4/3/2004 @ 6:44 am
It isn’t conspiracy to commit murder. It’s conspiracy to commit assault. I didn’t say they agreed to kill the guy. You can stab someone without killing them.
The judge has discretion to run the terms concurrent for all the above crimes. The highest minimum term is 3 years for evading a peace office causing injury. So the answer to your question is: 3 years. The actual time served would be 50% of that time, because none of the crimes is classified as violent (you serve 85% of your time on a violent felony). So the real answer is: one and a half years.
Granted, a judge would likely impose more time. However, as I said in my previous response to Betty, I gave an extreme example to make a point.
If you want to focus on what the person would get otherwise, do it this way. Take any one of the crimes committed in this crime spree, many of which are misdemeanors, and none of which is individually punishable by more than six years. Someone who committed that crime could not have their sentence enhanced under the three strikes law no matter how many strike priors the defendant has. So the actual time served by a three-striker who commits one of the above crimes is — at most — three years.
Comment by Patterico — 4/3/2004 @ 11:38 am
Congrats. This entry made Tuesday’s Daily Urinal.
Comment by Xrlq — 4/8/2004 @ 4:53 pm
Bloggers in the Media
The Angry Clam has advised me that Tuesday’s Daily Urinal contains one of “Defense Attorney” Patterico’s recent pieces on the initiative to kill “reform” the Three Strikes Law. More details to follow. UP
Trackback by damnum absque injuria — 4/8/2004 @ 4:56 pm
I’m not a big proponent of three strikes or the federal sentencing guidelines or much of anything that creates a mandatory sentence mechanic. But what’s so stupid about this is that it replaces one screwed up sentence mechanic and replaces it with another one.
Give me a proposition that gives more authority to judges and removes three strikes, and I’ll vote for it — but this… this is just silly.
Comment by Andrew — 4/9/2004 @ 5:27 am
The Three Strikes Law should apply to Rapists and Murders. Protect the children, this would. And for the others, give them time, but, give their children their parent back.
Comment by Geraldine — 4/27/2004 @ 2:53 pm
“The Three Strikes Law should apply to Rapists and Murders. Protect the children, this would. And for the others, give them time, but, give their children their parent back.”
Given their children their parent back? Why? So they can screw the kid up with their criminal values thus creating more juvenile offenders in the system?
I’d love it if every kid had two parents - but if one of them is a criminal, even if it’s just a repeat drug abuser who breaks into cars to steal stereos, I don’t see how having that kind of negative influence around does society any good. Why not pay to keep that criminal/parent in prison so that maybe the kid doesn’t grow into another criminal?
I never bought into the hype that the media and video games are the reason why kids go bad. Bad parenting creates bad kids. Criminals as parents may not always create criminal kids - but they create more criminals than single law abiding parents do. In long run, are we really wasting that much money incarcerating criminals who have no business raising children given the amount of damage they do to society by being such terrible parents?
Comment by Jim — 5/5/2004 @ 9:22 pm