In November, Californians may be voting on an initiative billing itself as the Three Strikes and Child Protection Act of 2004. A better name for the initiative would be the “Eviscerating Three Strikes and Putting Children at Risk from Sexually Violent Predators Act of 2004.”

According to a recent story in L.A. Weekly, almost all the required signatures have been collected, and polls (commissioned by organizations supporting the initiative) show strong support for the initiative. (Of course, you can give a poll that commands a sizable majority supporting the banning of water — it’s all in how you word the question.)

Support for the initiative probably stems from the public’s misunderstanding of the law. Many think that any three crimes will automatically get you a 25-to-life sentence. Not so. First, you must be convicted of two “strikes” — serious or violent felonies like rape, robbery, murder, carjacking, residential burglary, and arson. A list of strikes can be found here. Then, you must commit a third felony. With the passage of Proposition 36, you can’t get 25-to-life for drug possession any more, unless you have a “strike” prior and have been to prison within the last five years. And prosecutors and judges are not bound by the law, but have discretion to ignore strike priors to impose a more lenient sentence.

The initiative is a pig in a poke. It’s being sold as a combination “child protection” bill and a reasonable amendment of Three Strikes. It is neither. It is a wish list for defense attorneys. Even if you are sympathetic to the stated goal of the initiative — requiring that the third strike be a serious or violent felony — you need to be aware that the initiative does a hell of a lot more than that.

And calling it a “child protection” act is one of the most brazen lies I have ever seen. This initiative will result in the release of violent criminals who will victimize children. Make no mistake: innocent children will be harmed — not helped — by the passage of this initiative.

Here are the principal problems with the proposed initiative:

• Multiple separate violent crimes count as only one strike if tried in a single trial.

  Under this rule, serial murderers and rapists would get only one strike conviction for their multiple violent crimes. For example, Richard Ramirez (the “Night Stalker”) would get only one strike for his 13 separate murder convictions. Charles Manson would have only one strike for his seven murder convictions in the Tate-LaBianca murder case. And from what I can tell, it appears that Richard Allen Davis, the guy who murdered Polly Klaas, never would have faced a third-strike sentence.

• The law redefines several offenses as non-strikes.

  For example, criminal death threats and most residential burglaries will not count as strike priors. You can now drive drunk (or lead police on a high-speed chase, or both) and put somebody in a wheelchair — and that’s not a strike if you didn’t specifically intend to do so. Setting a massive brush or forest fire — or two, or four — will no longer be considered a serious crime unless someone is hurt or a building burns down. And the list goes on.

• The strike law will now apply only to third strikes that are “serious or violent.”

  This may sound attractive to some, but it is far too extreme a solution — especially in light of the redefinition of so many crimes as non-strikes. For example, Charlie Manson could be paroled and break into your house or threaten to kill you — and he wouldn’t face 25-to-life, despite his numerous previous murder convictions. Is this really what we want?

• Probably the scariest thing about the initiative is that it opens the floodgates for hundreds of violent prisoners to be released.

  The law provides that any criminal previously sentenced under the Three Strikes Law has the right to be resentenced according to the terms of the law as amended. In conjunction with the various provisions already discussed — including those redefining many offenses as non-strikes, and turning multiple violent crimes into a single strike prior — this is a dangerous provision indeed.

  Just because someone was convicted of an offense that was not serious or violent does not mean that they are not dangerous. Some of the people who could be released are described in this post. They include people like Joseph Noble, a repeat pedophile who has molested multiple young girls between the ages of 5 and 7. He still has violent sexual fantasies about raping and murdering young girls, and said at his trial for indecent exposure that, “on a magnitude of evil, (masturbating) is nothing compared to what I’m capable of.”

The law also redefines and slightly increases the penalty for certain sexual offenses committed on children. This is a Trojan horse, designed simply to make the law attractive to those who want to punish child molesters.

How is releasing Joseph Noble going to protect children??

I am afraid that this initiative is likely to pass unless an aggressive campaign is mounted to tell the voters the truth. We can’t rely on the mainstream media to get the message out. I think it will be up to alternative outlets like talk radio and the internet. If talk radio hosts hammer this issue home, the way they did with the recall — and if they highlight the problems I mention above, there may be a chance to prevent the initiative from passing.

But it is going to take aggressive action. Read the text of the law. Reach your own conclusions. And if you agree with me, talk to your friends. Write on your blog about it. And write or call your local talk radio hosts, and get them up in arms about this. The safety of Californians is at stake.