Who Will Be Released Under the New Three Strikes Initiative?
Will the upcoming initiative to gut the Three Strikes law release dangerous criminals?
You betcha! The law calls for anybody sentenced under current law to be resentenced according to the terms of the new law.
Who will be resentenced? Here are two examples of which I have personal knowledge. In both cases, the defendants will be immediately released on their third-strike cases upon resentencing. In the first case, prosecutors hope to keep the defendant incarcerated under the Sexually Violent Predator Law. In the second case, a violent individual will be out on the streets as soon as he can get to court.
See if you can read these examples and not feel a chill run down your spine.
- Our first candidate for release is a notorious pedophile named Joseph Noble, who targeted young girls aged 5 to 7 in the South Bay area. He is currently serving 25-to-life for exposing his genitals about 30 times to multiple female County Jail employees. There is no doubt that, if released, this man will commit sex crimes against more young girls.
As described in stories from the Copley News Service and Daily Breeze news organizations, Noble had a 26-year criminal history, with prior convictions for kidnapping, child molestation, and indecent exposure. Noble never spent more than a year out of custody since he was 20 years old. However, in those brief periods of freedom, he was a sexual predator who committed multiple sexual offenses against young girls.
For example, one victim was 7 years old when Noble lured her away from some swings, to “show her some kittens.” Instead, he tried to force her to orally copulate him at the Redondo Beach schoolyard. He choked her until she lost consciousness. Noble wasn’t caught, but a month later, at another elementary school, he was arrested for masturbating in front of a group of young girls as he made lewd comments to them.
Noble was committed to Patton State Hospital, and escaped, only 4 months after committing the first crime against the 7-year-old. Two months after the escape, he was arrested again, after he forced a 6-year-old girl to orally copulate him behind a neighbor’s garage in Redondo Beach.
Later, while on parole in 1984, Noble attempted to kidnap some young girls at an elementary school in Hawthorne, but the girls escaped. He pleaded to two counts of attempted kidnapping.
More than once, after Noble’s release, police would follow him and conduct surveillance. Investigators working the surveillance described him as the worst child molester they had ever investigated. They said he seemed to know where all the parks and schools were located in the South Bay, and he would drive a route between all of these locations, watching the children play.
During one such surveillance in 1987, he violated his parole by loitering near a Lomita School. Sheriff’s deputies found a note inside his car which detailed sexual fantasies involving young girls. Noble described his fantasies of murdering a two-year old girl by raping her and splitting her open with his penis. He said he wanted to do this either on a boat or in the desert so that nobody could hear her screams. Noble described certain crimes as though he had actually committed them, and described the blood of young girls covering his “massive cock.” Among other things, the entry stated:
Little girls are (my) most perverted desire. . . . I have an incredible lust for young, tiny, innocent virgins. Sadistically raping or sodomizing a beautiful young girl gives me incredible pleasure. Their screams of agony are music to my ears, as I brutally mutilate their undeveloped tiny genitals for hours at a time.
After serving a brief term for violating his parole, Noble was again released, and again violated parole by approaching a 9-year old girl. After his release from prison a year later, police followed him again, and observed him masturbating while he watched the children playing on the playground.
At his trial for indecent exposure, Noble admitted that he still has violent sexual fantasies about children. He said, “on a magnitude of evil, (masturbating) is nothing compared to what I’m capable of.” The judge who sentenced him, Judith Champagne, agreed, saying:
The defendant’s background is the most disturbing part of this formula . . . He has all but promised he is going to re-offend.
Judge Champagne added that the Three Strikes Law ”is a sentencing scheme that was designed for someone like Mr. Noble.”
If Noble is resentenced, he will be immediately released on his indecent exposure case. Although prosecutors hope that he can be kept in custody under the Sexually Violent Predator Law, this will require a new trial every couple of years. Even if this strategy works, Noble will eventually be transferred from state prison to a state mental hospital. And don’t forget: in 1978, he escaped from a state mental hospital and committed a violent sex crime. (Another person who escaped from a state hospital and committed more violent crimes was Richard Allen Davis — the “poster boy” for the Three Strikes Law.)
- Our second candidate for release under the terms of the initiative is Billy Ray Pimpton, a man whose first two strikes were for shooting at two police officers while they were chasing him after he snatched a woman’s purse. After serving a brief prison sentence, he was released on parole, and brutally beat a man on a bus for not giving him a dollar. Pimpton kicked the man in the head and body while he lay on the floor of the bus. He gave the man a concussion, loosened his teeth, and incapacitated him for three weeks.
Pimpton is currently serving a 25-to-life sentence for a petty theft in which he attacked a store employee, leaving bruises, and threatened to “beat his ass.” Although technically a petty theft, his conduct was very similar to a robbery, but could not be prosecuted as such for technical reasons (he returned the property before making threats and assaulting the employee).
Just one month before committing this petty theft, Pimpton slashed his girlfriend in the shoulder with a box cutter. Two to three years before that, he had stabbed the same woman in the chest, collapsing her lung and leaving her in the hospital for 2 weeks. The girlfriend testified to these attacks at the defendant’s sentencing hearing. The judge believed that the woman was telling the truth. As reported in this story in the Los Angeles Times, the judge at Pimpton’s sentencing
handed down a sentence of 25 years to life.
“Whether I personally agree with it or not,” said the judge, a former defense attorney, sending people like Pimpton away for 25 to life “appears to be what [voters] intended to do.”
If resentenced, Pimpton will be released immediately from state prison custody.
In each of these situations, the defendant’s most recent conviction was for a relatively minor offense: Noble for indecent exposure, and Pimpton for petty theft. However, in each case, the defendant is almost certain to commit more serious offenses upon his release from custody.
The voters who passed the Three Strikes Law wanted to protect society from people who were clearly going to commit further violent offenses — and voters didn’t want to wait for them to do it again.
Have I picked the two worst people in the state? Nope. Not at all. I chose these two examples merely because my wife was the prosecutor on one case, and I was the prosecutor on the other. But we are only two prosecutors among several hundred across the state.
So: multiply the above examples by a few hundred, and you’ll have some idea of the flood of violent criminals we’ll be releasing into society if this initiative passes.
P.S. What a joke that this thing is called the “Three Strikes and Child Protection Act of 2004.” After reading this post, please tell me whether it sounds like this law will protect children. The cynicism of this makes my blood boil.
UPDATE: A more comprehensive analysis of the law, with links to all of my posts on the initiative, can be found here.
Why the Three Strikes Initiative is Bad Law
Patterico explains here why the so-called Three Strikes and Child Protection Act of 2004 is a bad, bad idea. Patterico describes two convicts who, if the initiative passes, will be out on the street thanks to the folks pushing for…
Trackback by The Southern California Law Blog — 4/3/2004 @ 9:18 pm
Scary stuff. Thanks for the info. I’ve always been a big supporter of three strikes laws, and these are perfect examples of why.
Comment by Michael Williams — 4/3/2004 @ 10:50 pm
Three Strikes and You’re… Back In
BFL buddy Patterico relates some detailed first-hand knowledge of exactly what kind of creeps will be immediately released if the so-called “Three Strikes and Child Protection Act of 2004″ gets passed. The examples are very disturbing, but the criminal…
Trackback by Michael Williams -- Master of None — 4/4/2004 @ 12:02 am
Language Alert
Patterico offers two examples of California prison inmates who would be released if a ballot initiative passes in November. Scary….
Trackback by blogoSFERICS — 4/4/2004 @ 7:57 am
The only change to this law should be making it two strikes instead of three.
Comment by BG — 4/4/2004 @ 8:09 am
Narrowing the strike zone
It could be argued, I suppose, that California’s so-called “Three Strikes” rule is overly expensive, but as Patterico has been pointing out, the price to be paid for letting career…
Trackback by dustbury.com — 4/4/2004 @ 9:04 am
While I still harbor strong reservations about Three Strikes, I think that gutting it with this amendment would be a very bad idea. You’ve made a great argument, Patterico, with good examples of three criminals who would end up being unjustly released on society if this amendment were to become law.
The two criminals detailed in this post demonstrate perfectly the need for harsh penalties for habitual offenders. But I also worry about a situation in which a criminal’s actions have earned a harsh punishment - perhaps even legally qualifying for Three Strikes - but not so harsh that Three Strikes sentencing is appropriate. In such a case, we’re stuck with either too harshly punishing the criminal or unfairly punishing society.
However, that is a separate argument. After all, whether Three Strikes needs to be amended, it doesn’t need to be gutted by this amendment.
Comment by bob — 4/4/2004 @ 9:25 am
Am I the only one who thinks it’s too bad that we can’t give the death penalty to these two miscreants?
Comment by Mace — 4/4/2004 @ 9:32 am
Bob has a point. One of the problems with Three Strikes is that there is such a huge gap between a second strike penalty and a third strike penalty. Usually it’s the difference between 6 years and 25-to-life. Often you have a situation where someone deserves more than 6 years, but 25-to-life seems like overkill.
That problem could be a good candidate for amendment. But what’s going on now is just dangerous.
Comment by Patterico — 4/4/2004 @ 9:41 am
Travesty of Justice - Or Just Simple Justice?
Patterico’s Pontifications: Who Will Be Released Under the New Three Strikes Initiative?Will the upcoming initiative to gut the Three Strikes law release dangerous criminals? You…
Trackback by Daily Pundit — 4/4/2004 @ 11:40 am
Gutting Three Strikes
Patterico has a must read post on attempts to gut California’s Three Strikes law and what the results would be…
Trackback by Absinthe & Cookies (a little bit bitter, a little bit sweet) — 4/4/2004 @ 2:33 pm
I think the problem is with appropriate sentencing for crimes committed. (As opposed to 3 strikes laws.)
“forced a 6 year old girl to orally copulate him” should equate to a life sentence without parole.
“stabbed the same woman in the chest, collapsing her lung and leaving her in the hospital for 2 weeks.” The 25 year sentence should be served in full.
If sentencing for convicted crimes was severe — and not open to early parole — than there wouldn’t be an issue with “third strike laws” releasing people because their last conviction was for a lesser crime; and there wouldn’t be the issue of “sexual predator” confinement based on what a convict *might* do.
Put ‘em in the slammer for 25-50 years (or life) for what they HAVE done, no option for parole. I’d be more than willing to pay taxes for more jails for that (i.e., as opposed to paying taxes for baseball stadiums, development TIF, etc., etc.).
I sincerely don’t understand why this is an issue in our society in this day and age.
Comment by cj — 4/5/2004 @ 12:06 am
So you’ve found two extreme examples, involving sexually or physically violent offenders who clearly deserve incarceration until they are no longer any conceivable danger to society (i.e. dead). Whoopee !! A gold star for you.
What you have actually proven is that one-size-fits-all solutions are bound to fail at the margins. This remedial action designed to alleviate injustices caused by the three strikes law is one such example. The three strikes law is another. The real problem with laws of this nature is that they are both under and over inclusive - and the only answer are legal solutions with a substantial amount of guided discretion to ensure that justice is done in ALL cases.
Comment by David J. Parsons — 4/6/2004 @ 1:06 pm
David J. Parsons,
I would encourage you to read all my posts on the topic before glibly resorting to sarcasm. I believe I have a balanced approach to the law. I simply think that the proposed initiative is far more dangerous than the ill it seeks to cure.
And I agree that “legal solutions with a substantial amount of guided discretion” are the best solution.
Comment by Patterico — 4/6/2004 @ 1:45 pm
It occurs to me that if the state cannot control these freaks then there will come a time when citizens will. Yes, I mean vigilantism. You and I may not like it, but what other recourse will there be for citizens?
One sees huge quantities of treasure spent on law enforcement, judiciary, and corrections only to find the dregs released to prey again. Why? To make room for pot smokers and crack heads, perhaps? Regardless, I think there is a point where good citizens will resort to extra-legal methods. Is that point near? Could any of us blame them if they did?
I’m not advocating, I’m merely pointing out that humans are fairly self-sufficient and when faced with a problem tend to improvise a solution.
Comment by Jim — 4/6/2004 @ 5:36 pm
Submitted for Your Approval
First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council links:Lame Def…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 4/6/2004 @ 8:51 pm
Submitted for Your Approval
First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council links:Lame Def…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 4/6/2004 @ 11:03 pm
The Council Has Spoken!
First off…  any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here.  Die spambots, die!  And now…  the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are Iraq - A Matter of Perspective by Exultate Ju…
Trackback by Watcher of Weasels — 4/8/2004 @ 7:08 pm
Iagree with the three strikes law but only as far as needed for example people brake the law all the time and that includes me and you and the people around us. but not all of us get caught, now the ones who get caught do deserve punishment for there actions no doubt about that. but when it comes to the three strikes law there are some major issues that need to be taken in to concideration. I think that this law is being missued in every way it can and us tax payers are really being the ones who are being punished do you think so someone needs to look over the law and rewrite it and when they do they must also take in consideration us the people of America!
Comment by david garcia — 4/13/2004 @ 2:21 pm
the 3x “reform” initiative proposal has now gathered enuff signatures to put it on the november ballot.
Comment by Cali white bear — 4/14/2004 @ 1:35 pm
Weasel Roundup
Weasels tend to seethe when thwarted. And when truth is bandied about, veins bulge…
Trackback by Spicedsass — 4/15/2004 @ 1:29 pm
The 3 strikes law punishes you for any violent or serious crime committed previous to the law taking effect in 1994. Plea bargins or pleas made
back in the days prior to 3 strikes law might have plead diffently knowing that those charges could be later used against them to do a 25 to life sentence(after they served time on that crime), which is double jeproady. The law should be any crime committed after the law went into effect because most laws written don’t convict on everything done in the past. Use a traffic violation for example, if a law passed that all 3rd offense traffic violations were mandatory jail time & any prior traffic tickets
you ever got would be used against you and were included in the 3 that you are allowed now, does this sound realistic?? No it does not…but the 3 strikes law works this exact way. The law should be a deterrent and a remedy to keep violent offenders off the streets from the time it gets passed and nothing prior. This is what has happened to my brother because he committed residential burglary in an unoccupied home 18 years prior to his recent coviction for terrorist threats over a verbal arguement that qualified him for a 3rd strike. Hes serving 79 years to life and has never committed any violent offense in his life. He’s has been permanetly removed from society. How fair is that??? Murder carries 14 years and most get out in 7 years and to me, taking a human life is not only violent & serious, but permanent. A rape conviction carries much less. Where are our priorities at?
Comment by Debbie Bean — 4/20/2004 @ 10:57 pm
Debbie,
There is much in your post that is wrong.
You portray your brother as having only one strike (for residential burglary), but he could not get 79 to life unless he had at least two prior strikes, before committing his third strike (threatening to kill someone).
Further, he could not get 79 to life for a single current felony. His most recent case must have resulted in at least 3 felony convictions. Moreover, a sentence of 79 to life (as opposed to 75 to life) also strongly suggests that this is his fifth prison commitment.
Also, murder is not punishable by 14 years. Second degree murder is punishable by 15 to life. Comparing a sentence for a first-time offense to a three strikes offense, as the Ninth Circuit did two days ago, is comparing apples and oranges.
Three Strikes does not violate double jeopardy or even the Ex Post Facto Clause.
I’m not saying the law is never applied unfairly, but there are a few things you clearly aren’t telling us. You may not even realize this, in which case, I hate to be the one to break it to you.
Comment by Patterico — 4/21/2004 @ 6:01 am
Weasel Roundup
Weasels tend to seethe when thwarted. And when truth is bandied about, veins bulge…
Trackback by Spicedsass — 4/29/2004 @ 4:26 am
I read the proposed ballot initiative this afternoon and I’m afraid that the pervasive misunderstanding of the Three Strikes law coupled with a few well publicized but incompletely reported cases of it’s implementation will result in the watering down of this law and the release of hundreds of dangerous felons - some of whom I personally prosecuted.
When I became a deputy district attorney many people asked me about the Three Strikes law. They had usually heard a story about someone being sentenced to 25 years to life for stealing a piece of pizza or possessing a tenth of a gram of cocaine. They thought the law was Draconian. When I began prosecuting these cases years later, I learned that was far from the case.
I work for Santa Clara County which is widely considered the most “conservative” and therefore severe jurisdiction in Northern California. Before anyone is sentenced to life as a Three Striker here, many things have to happen.
First, a paralegal gathers the reports and records of conviction of the defendant. The facts of the underlying prior convictions are reviewed by a committee of prosecutors with more than 80 years of combined experience. This committee looks at the age of the prior convictions, the underlying facts of the prior convictions, the facts of the current charges and the rest of the criminal history of the defendant. Before this committee will allow me to prosecute any defendant as a Three Striker - they must all agree that a life sentence would be appropriate.
Second, even if the committee agrees that a life sentence is appropriate, they will accept additional information from the defendant’s attorney and reconsider their evaluation. While I am not privy to the statistics of the first review, I do have the statistics for the 23 “Three Strikes” cases I have completed. Twice out of 23 cases the committee has reduced one of my Three Strikes defendants to a non-life case because of mitigating information provided by the defendant’s attorney. (Two out or 23 may sound low - but not when only five of those 23 were given a 25 to life sentence.)
Third, even after the defendant pleads guilty or is convicted by a jury, a judge has the authority to reduce a Three Strikes case to less than a life term. This is known as a Romero motion - named after a Surpreme Court case allowing judges to dismiss prior convictions at the time of sentencing “in the interests of justice.” Even if the DA prosecutes someone as a Three Striker in Santa Clara County, in the majority of cases a judge dismisses one or more prior convictions at the time of sentencing and gives a sentence far less than 25 years to life. Out of my 23 completed cases, judges have granted Romero motions and given sentences less than 25 years to life in 8 cases.
Fourth, even if a judge does not dismiss a prior conviction, he or she can reduce some felonies to misdemeanors thereby removing a defendant from the Three Strikes sentencing guidelines altogether. Out of my 23 cases, judges have reduced the current felony to a misdemeanor twice.
When I explain all of the things that have to happen before someone is prosecuted in Santa Clara County as a Three Striker (after committing two or more serious or violent felonies in the past and then committing another felony now) the reality of the law normally leaves them upset with the media for misleading them.
For the record, out of 23 defendants with two or more prior serious or violent felony convictions, I have only seen 5 actually receive a sentence of 25 years or more to life. The basic facts of those five cases:
Defendant One - Had three prior convictions for residential burglary and had been to prison twice before. In his current case, he began burglarizing homes within two weeks of getting out of prison. He was caught after burglarizing 10 homes over the course of a few weeks. He faced 250 years to life but was allowed to plead before preliminary hearing to just one burglary so that he could get a 25 year sentence.
Defendant Two - Abducted and raped a woman in the early 70s. When he got out of prison, he abducted and attempted to rape another woman. When he got out of prison again, he abducted another woman. He pulled her pants off and beat her head against a concrete wall. When she told him she was religious and her father was dying, the defendant broke off the attack and left her. When he saw her again in court, the defendant made a cutting motion to her across his throat. When he got out of prison, he was arrested attempting to break into a woman’s home as she sat crying inside begging him to leave her alone. When he was arrested, he told the cop he would do it again when he got out. After he was released from prison in the late 80s he met and broke up with multiple women whom he would not leave alone. Each filed restraining orders which he violated 13 times. In his current crime, he attacked a ticket collector on a train. When police arrested him, he told one officer he was a rapist and would rape the officer’s wife and kids. He explained that he could find out where the officer lived because his current girlfriend worked in real estate. He then tried to attack the officer during booking and threatened the officer’s life when the cop tried to leave the area. Given the defendant’s history the officer took the threats seriously - especially since his wife was home alone with his two young children while he was at work.
Defendant Three - Abducted a five year old girl and drove her to a deserted parking lot where he orally copulated her and masturbated her with his finger. He then drove around some more before stopping to masturbate her and himself a second time. He penetrated her so forcefully that he tore her vagina - a wound the treating physician described as like an episiotomy. When he saw a police officer the girl began crying out. He punched her in the face and then tried to talk his way out of the traffic stop. Luckily the officer saw the blood on the girl’s pajama’s and the swollen check where she had been punched. After being released from prison, defendant violated his sex offender registration but one of his prior convictions was dismissed and he got 32 months prison instead of 25 years. Less than a year after his next release, police found an 8 ball of heroin along with a duffel bag of needles in his apartment during a parole search.
Defendant Four - Burglarized a home in the early 80s. He was caught and got probation. He then burglarized another home and found a gun. When the homeowner came home the defendant waived the gun at him and fled. After his release from prison, defendant committed a dozen new felonies and was sentenced to prison another six times. Three more times he burglarized homes. In his last case, he was caught with methamphetamine packaged for sale, over a thousand dollars in cash and all the tools needed to crack a safe. He made bail and was caught burglarizing a store. He made bail again and was caught burglarizing another store and was charged with the burglary of three other stores. He bailed out again and was caught burglarizing another store - this time disguised as Santa Claus. He did not make bail after that, but managed to get caught with methamphetamine inside the jail before his case could go to trial. The defendant faced more than 200 years in prison. The judge dismissed his prior convictions for all but one charge and sentenced him to 25 years to life.
Defendant Five - Got upset when a doorman wouldn’t let him into a private party. He came back later that night and slashed the doorman’s face with a knife. The defendant got out of jail and tried to rob three women with his friends when the women’s car broke down. When one of their husbands arrived to help them with the car, defendand and his friends beat the man with a 2×4 and a tire iron. When defendant got out of jail he got into a fight at a party. When a man tried to break up the fight, defendant pulled a knife and stabbed him in the back. After defendant got out of prison, he met a girl at a junior college and raped her. The jury hung and he pleaded guilty to felony sexual assault. After he got out prison, he and his girlfriend were caught with half an ounce of meth. His girlfriend took the rap for the meth and he walked. Then he got caught with more meth but the case was dismissed for a search and seizure violation. Then in the current case, police caught defendant trying to hide some methamphetamine along with a digital scale.
Five other cases did not result in life sentences for other reasons (victims/witnesses disappeared or were uncooperative, evidence was suppressed, etc.)
Should all current felony cases be tried as Three Strikes cases when the defendant has two qualifying prior convictions? Obviously not. And contrary to what the media would have you believe - they are not because the law has multiple safeguards built into it.
When you hear about a case of some guy going to prison for life for stealing a donut, look for the rest of the story. What were his qualifying prior convictions? What was the rest of his criminal record like? Nobody goes to prison for life “just” for one crime. Every Three Strikes sentence is the culmination of many decisions by a defendant to violate the law which protects us all. Anyone who is willing to make that decision repeatedly, especially when he knows he could be looking at 25 years to life is a threat to my safety and yours.
Comment by Jim — 5/3/2004 @ 9:16 pm
my friend is doing 25 to life yes i do know about his past jail times but he had a legal binding contract with a judge and the da they used that agreement to use as a stipulation to three strike him i feel that how we are letting child molesters go free and murders the 3 strike law needs to be amended and my friends legal agreement should of been honored
Comment by kelly casson — 5/15/2004 @ 4:37 pm
my friend is doing 25 to life yes i do know about his past jail times but he had a legal binding contract with a judge and the da they used that agreement to use as a stipulation to three strike him i feel that how we are letting child molesters go free and murders the 3 strike law needs to be amended and my friends legal agreement should of been honored
Comment by kelly casson — 5/15/2004 @ 4:37 pm
The bottom-line is….The 3 strikes law needs to be amended. Period. It’s being applied unfairly and the consequences are life changing ones. The retroactive part in itself is very unfair. The California prison system is bursting at the seams. The money spent by the people is through the roof. Obviously, there are people out there that need to be locked up, permanetly. But not the “non-Violent” offenders, like my brother. There is no threat to society. No past violence ever. It makes no sense. I think a big issue is all the jobs being filled in the correctional field. Keeping the three strikes law as it is becomes job security for alot of people. I mean ALOT. I could go on and on , but I won’t.All I am saying is that we need to make some serious changes very soon.
Comment by Debbie Bean — 7/1/2004 @ 7:49 pm
The bottom-line is….The 3 strikes law needs to be amended. Period. It’s being applied unfairly and the consequences are life changing ones. The retroactive part in itself is very unfair. The California prison system is bursting at the seams. The money spent by the people is through the roof. Obviously, there are people out there that need to be locked up, permanetly. But not the “non-Violent” offenders, like my brother. There is no threat to society. No past violence ever. It makes no sense. I think a big issue is all the jobs being filled in the correctional field. Keeping the three strikes law as it is becomes job security for alot of people. I mean ALOT. I could go on and on , but I won’t.All I am saying is that we need to make some serious changes very soon.
Comment by Debbie Bean — 7/1/2004 @ 7:50 pm
The bottom-line is….The 3 strikes law needs to be amended. Period. It’s being applied unfairly and the consequences are life changing ones. The retroactive part in itself is very unfair. The California prison system is bursting at the seams. The money spent by the people is through the roof. Obviously, there are people out there that need to be locked up, permanetly. But not the “non-Violent” offenders, like my brother. There is no threat to society. No past violence ever. It makes no sense. I think a big issue is all the jobs being filled in the correctional field. Keeping the three strikes law as it is becomes job security for alot of people. I mean ALOT. I could go on and on , but I won’t.All I am saying is that we need to make some serious changes very soon.
Comment by Debbie Bean — 7/1/2004 @ 7:50 pm
I think that the “Three strikes law” is a very good one but Idon’t agree with the certain convictions that follow with it. I totally agree with the law being inforced on those criminals such as the ones discribed here. I don’t agree with the law being inforced on the ones that have “drug related” crimes. Come on, do you really actually think that “drug realted” convictions should be under that law? It doesn’t really make any since, not that I am condoning that issue but I don’t think that that’s a real punishment for them. I sincerely do think that a lot of them are serving way to much time for the crimes that they were convicted of at that point of time. It’s not like they were sticking a “joint” inside of a young childs’ private area or forcing them to put it up to their mouths. The prisons are entirely too full of men and women that don’t really in all sense need to be there. They could have served regular jail time for that in their county jails. The prisons will continue to overflow if we don’t do something about it. There’s no room for the ones that really need to be in there. That’s why all the most violent offenders are being released today. There isn’t any where to put them. SO, I think that we ALL really need to take a closer look at what the “Three Strikes Law” really stands for and just to whom is it being referred to. In all honesty, what drug offenders can do on the streets, they can also do in prison and it’s a whole lot more easier.
Comment by Tamisha — 8/6/2004 @ 3:38 am
I think that the “Three strikes law” is a very good one but Idon’t agree with the certain convictions that follow with it. I totally agree with the law being inforced on those criminals such as the ones discribed here. I don’t agree with the law being inforced on the ones that have “drug related” crimes. Come on, do you really actually think that “drug realted” convictions should be under that law? It doesn’t really make any since, not that I am condoning that issue but I don’t think that that’s a real punishment for them. I sincerely do think that a lot of them are serving way to much time for the crimes that they were convicted of at that point of time. It’s not like they were sticking a “joint” inside of a young childs’ private area or forcing them to put it up to their mouths. The prisons are entirely too full of men and women that don’t really in all sense need to be there. They could have served regular jail time for that in their county jails. The prisons will continue to overflow if we don’t do something about it. There’s no room for the ones that really need to be in there. That’s why all the most violent offenders are being released today. There isn’t any where to put them. SO, I think that we ALL really need to take a closer look at what the “Three Strikes Law” really stands for and just to whom is it being referred to. Please, AMEND the law!!!!!!!
Comment by Tamisha — 8/6/2004 @ 3:42 am