Patterico's Pontifications

10/19/2005

L.A. Times Misleads on Three Strikes — For the Umpteenth Time

Filed under: Crime,Dog Trainer — Patterico @ 7:36 pm



The L.A. Times runs a story this morning titled Impact of 3-Strikes Law Still Unclear. Thanks to the story, the way the Three Strikes law works is also unclear.

It’s really not that hard to describe the operation of the 25-to-life portion of the Three Strikes law. Someone who has two prior convictions for serious or violent felonies (crimes such as murder, rape, kidnapping, robbery, arson, and residential burglary, to name just a few) is subject to a 25-to-life sentence upon conviction of any third felony.

Even though this is a ridiculously simple thing to explain, the editors often forget to tell readers the part about how the first two convictions have to be strikes. Today is no exception. Nowhere does today’s story explain to readers that the first two strikes have to be serious or violent. Instead, it suggests that any three felony convictions can lead to a 25-to-life sentence:

Under the law, a defendant convicted of a third felony can be sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. . . . Critics are most unhappy about a provision that permits any felony — not just a serious or violent crime — to be charged as a third strike.

All technically true, and all highly misleading. It’s so easy to describe the law accurately, yet the paper seems hellbent on trying to persuade readers that someone can be incarcerated for life for committing three nonserious and nonviolent crimes. And this is not the first time the paper has done this, either.

In light of the paper’s long history of distorting the facts on Three Strikes (as I have documented repeatedly on this site), it’s hard to see today’s misleading description of the law as pure accident. As with repeat criminal offenders, after a while, you start to see a pattern.

(Thanks to Mrs. P. and MOG for mentioning the piece.)

8 Responses to “L.A. Times Misleads on Three Strikes — For the Umpteenth Time”

  1. … [T]he paper seems hellbent on trying to persuade readers that someone can be incarcerated for life for committing three nonserious and nonviolent crimes.

    Sorry Patterico, but that’s simply not true. That charge is not made in the article. Actually, the third strike is the problem, not the first two. What people don’t like about the law is the third strike’s excessiveness, not the two strikes before it.

    To be honest, my hard-ass (republican) side doesn’t really care about the three strikes law since there is a high rate of recidivism anyway. On the other hand – unless revenge is the only reason for incarceration – paying to keep people jailed after they’re old is often useless. (Older folks are less likely to hold up banks, for example.)

    Are you republicans so used to being a minority that you naturally think that you have to accomplish your goals in a roundabout way? Instead of trying to be underhanded, use your power to make the sentences longer for serious, violent crimes rather than turning to questionable measures such as this. A more straightforward approach like that would get more support in the long run from both Ds and Rs. If the stories I keep hearing are true about murderers getting out of prison in 7 years or so, then I support your contention that stiffer sentences are warranted.

    Now if we could just come up with a better idea than jail – where we put a bunch of crooks together and they come out worse than when they went in… Hmmm…

    Tillman (1cf529)

  2. Sorry Patterico, but that’s simply not true. That charge is not made in the article.

    Not explicitly. As I said, the article is technically true, but misleading. It would be so easy to explain the law in an entirely accurate and non-misleading way — but the article does not do that.

    Patterico (4e4b70)

  3. Sorry Tillman butthe 3 Strikes Law was ultimately enacted, and a revision ultimately defeated, by the voters. The legislature had little to do with this one. And if the democrat controlled California Legislature would vote in very harsh sentences for violent and serious felonies maybe we wouldn’t have this problem. (Although we do have a few tough penalties – the use of a gun during a serious/violent crime for example.)

    But older felons do still commit felonies – thefts and assaults for example. The three strikes law just catches those who “fall through the cracks” of their own logic and their, and apparently your, failure to understand that they’ve been given a number of chances to clean up their act … and if you commit another felony, you’re going to prison for possibly the rest of their life. Older felons or not – they will not be out committing another felony.

    MOG (5f96ea)

  4. Sure – older people commit crimes too. But the probability is a lot less after a certain age. They loose their adolescent hormones and they realize that they can’t run away fast enough, anyway. To me, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to incarcerate a decrepit person unless all you care about is the punishment.

    Also, as the philosopher David Hume argued about punishment, a person’s character changes over time. So if a person commits a crime when they’re 20, you’re not punishing the same person when they reach 40. Temperament and attitudes are not permanent characteristics in individuals. Accordingly, while long term incarceration may be necessary, it is far from ideal.

    Here is Hume from “Of Liberty and Necessity” Part II:

    Actions are, by their very nature, temporary and perishing; and where they proceed not from some cause in the character and disposition of the person who performed them, they can neither redound to his honour, if good; nor infamy, if evil.

    Tillman (1cf529)

  5. Two things I think are relevant to the debate about crime and criminals:

    1) The high recidivism rate is due, in large part, to drug testing. In the ’70’s, about a third of California parolees were returned to prison. Now that number is above two thirds.

    The number of felons returned to prison with a new charge is still about one third, the same as it was in the ’70’s. An equal number are returned for failing a drug test now. It isn’t that paroled felons have gotten worse (or better).

    2) I believe “strikes” can be imposed retroactively. Instead of the judge having discretion in sentencing that discretion has largely been transferred to prosecutors. The prosecutor now decides what receives a strike and what doesn’t, even long after the first or second conviction.

    Pug (2bcb61)

  6. Where do you guys get these facts?
    Yes, prosecutors do have some discretion as to which “strike” priors are filed – although if it’s there they must be filed per policy. But the judges have the ultimate discretion to “strike a strike” if it fits within the “interests of justice” standard. ie thay can’t just strike a strike because they want the case before them to settle.
    And I can’t tell you how many “older people” are still out there committing felonies. They are not “decrepit” or unable to move or use a weapon despite your misguided belief.
    And if they – in their younger, “adolescent hormone…” days, committed 2 serious or violent felonies, then they should think twice before the commit another felony.
    And all of this has nothing to do with me only concerning myself with “punishment.” This has to do with safety and restitution costs for the victims … or the lack thereof when these felons are in prison for 25 years to life.

    MOG (95a16d)

  7. Here is a quote from http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:hIxao4QiaKAJ:www.trowbridgefoundation.org/docs/age_and_recidivism.pdf+%22recidivism+and+age%22&hl=en :

    Age and Recidivism: How Accurate are Our Predictions?
    by Brett Trowbridge, Ph.D., J.D.

    Even though psychopathic offenders offend very little after age 50, current “three
    strikes” (even “two strikes” in some states) laws, which cause an individual to receive a
    life sentence upon conviction of his third major felony, are causing prisons to fill up with
    even more elderly inmates, who would actually be very unlikely to re-offend if released.
    Not only is the cost of incarcerating them considerable, but most of them are being
    deprived of their liberty unnecessarily. The apparent reasons for incarcerating these
    inmates beyond age 60 would be retribution and punishment, as they do not appear on
    average to be dangerous

    Tillman (1cf529)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0742 secs.