By George Gascón
California’s “three strikes” sentencing law enacted in 1994 had the best of intentions – to keep serious and violent repeat offenders off our streets. Eighteen years later, we’ve learned valuable lessons about policing and keeping crime down, but we’ve also witnessed the unintended consequences of that law.
Since the law’s enactment, more than 8,500 prisoners have been sentenced to life in prison for solely nonviolent crimes – as minor as shoplifting or simple drug possession.
The enormous influx of life sentences has clogged our prison system, cost the state millions of dollars and removed people from society for relatively minor transgressions. These sentences are unfair, disproportionate, and do not keep us safer. These people should be punished with sentences that fit their crime.
Proposition 36 is a modest reform on the November ballot. Drafted by Stanford Law professors, NAACP Legal Defense Fund lawyers, and some of the toughest and most respected law enforcement officers, it will keep violent and dangerous criminals off the streets and makes sure life sentences are given to serious and violent repeat offenders.
It will eliminate unnecessary, harsh and ineffective life sentences for minor nonviolent crimes, and sentence those who commit repeated low-level offenses to twice the ordinary sentence – but not life.
When I was chief of police in San Francisco, murder rates were at their lowest in 50 years, and this was achieved without a dramatic increase in the number of inmates. These successes are evidence to me that public safety does not require mass incarceration of nonviolent offenders.
Under Prop. 36, up to 3,000 nonviolent “three strikes” inmates will have an opportunity to petition for a shorter sentence, pending a judicial determination that the inmate is no longer a risk to society. This will stop life sentences for nonviolent, nonserious crimes and make room in prison for our most violent criminals.
It will also relieve overcrowded prisons and address the U.S. Supreme Court order to release thousands of inmates and improve prison conditions.
Prop. 36 already has proved it will be effective. California’s largest and most diverse counties, including San Francisco and Los Angeles, have implemented this reform for years and, contrary to what critics claim, crime rates have gone down. In fact, the crime rates are lower in these large counties than in other counties that have not embraced these practices.
For these reasons, among others, District Attorneys Steve Cooley and Jeffrey Rosen are joining me to endorse Proposition 36. It preserves public safety and restores fairness, justice and proportionality to our criminal justice system. Please join me this November in voting yes on Proposition 36.
George Gascón is the District Attorney of San Francisco County
This is a good start at reforming our legal system. Next, we should work on sentencing guidelines and provide more rehabilitation for prisoners before they are released.
[quote]Under Prop. 36, up to 3,000 nonviolent “three strikes” inmates will have an opportunity to petition for a shorter sentence, pending a judicial determination that the inmate is no longer a risk to society. This will stop life sentences for nonviolent, nonserious crimes and make room in prison for our most violent criminals.[/quote]
Just a thought – is this an attempt to get older prisoners who cost the state huge amounts of money in medical expenses out of the prison system? And where do these prisoners go for medical help once dumped out onto the streets? To the local emergency rooms, which are already overcrowded/overworked/underpaid…
If someone wants to truly reform the 3 strikes law, why not reform the 3 strikes law?
I don’t see how changing the 3 strikes law would be directed at only releasing sick older prisoners. I do see how it will benefit tax rolls since many people that are sentenced under the current three strike laws aren’t a danger to society and actually have jobs and families.
“Just a thought – is this an attempt to get older prisoners who cost the state huge amounts of money in medical expenses out of the prison system? And where do these prisoners go for medical help once dumped out onto the streets? To the local emergency rooms, which are already overcrowded/overworked/underpaid…”
No what this is – and it is extremely limited is an attempt to end life sentences for people like our cheese thief and replace them basically treating them to second strike offense. It won’t deal with most of what you listed unless those people are non-violent/ non-sex offenders.
[quote]Under Prop. 36, up to 3,000 nonviolent “three strikes” inmates will have an opportunity to petition for a shorter sentence, pending a judicial determination that the [u][b]inmate is no longer a risk to society[/b][/u]. [/quote]
How is a prisoner [u][b]no longer a risk[/b][/u] to society? That sounds very much like it is aimed at getting rid of older prisoners who are sick and frail. I’m very suspicious, based on some things I’ve read lately…
Elaine
[quote]That sounds very much like it is aimed at getting rid of older prisoners who are sick and frail. I’m very suspicious, based on some things I’ve read lately…[/quote]
This sounds like a valid concern about an unintended consequence. But certainly the solution is to provide adequate health care, housing and other critical needs for these individuals in a community setting rather than to keep them in prison unnecessarily because they have become old, ill or frail.
Elaine: That’s why it’s helpful to look at who designed and pushed the law. This law was created by groups like the Stanford Three Strikes Project. They are a group at Stanford that look for cases like the cheese thief case and other non-violent three strikes and try to get them released after the fact. So they have now designed a law aimed to prevent those types of incarcerations.
[quote]This sounds like a valid concern about an unintended consequence. But certainly the solution is to provide adequate health care, housing and other critical needs for these individuals in a community setting rather than to keep them in prison unnecessarily because they have become old, ill or frail.[/quote]
[quote]Elaine: That’s why it’s helpful to look at who designed and pushed the law. This law was created by groups like the Stanford Three Strikes Project. They are a group at Stanford that look for cases like the cheese thief case and other non-violent three strikes and try to get them released after the fact. So they have now designed a law aimed to prevent those types of incarcerations.[/quote]
To you doubters of what I am speaking, please see the following link: [url]http://www.scpr.org/programs/patt-morrison/2012/02/21/22614/terminally-ill-prisoners-should-they-be-allowed-to/[/url]
[quote]It costs about $44,500 per year to house an inmate in the California state prison system, but prison officials are finding that costs are going up as the prison population ages.
As of the end of 2011, there were 6,697 inmates over the age of 60 in California’s prisons. Prisons in California and other states like Louisiana are beginning to institute “medical parole” initiatives designed to save costs by releasing some older prisoners early. Advocates of these programs say that older prisoners do not pose a threat to society, and cash strapped and over crowded prisons are hoping to save money. But the cost liability may just be switched to programs like Medicare, which pays at least some medical costs for the elderly.
WEIGH IN:
So are prisons merely looking for someone else to pay for prisoners’ medical care? Should taxpayers continue to provide healthcare for inmates sentenced to life behind bars?[/quote]
Because of the presence of these laws, it lessen the number of crimes that are happening in the country. This will going to teach people also to be responsible for their actions to avoid committing any crimes.
lawsuit funding ([url]http://trimarklegalfunding.com/lawsuit-funding.htm[/url])