Published May 7, 1998
Letters to the Editor
The Orange County Register
PO Box 11626
Santa Ana, CA 92711
A PARENT'S VIEW OF THE THREE‑STRIKE LAW
We parents with our prodigal children who are facing the Three‑strike law find it difficult to think of our children in the same cold way that Rodney W. Bell and Jeff Lane seem to think of them. ["Society is well served by the three‑strikes law," Talk Show, May 5]. I wander if they have children, and if so, would they still be able to say "it doesn't make any difference whether the third strike is stealing jeans or robbing a bank." Would they say that their child is a "habitual criminal who needs to be off the streets?" Even when the offense has been a non‑serious or non‑violent crime?
The three‑strikes law offers no redemption. No mercy. It condemns forever. It is hopeless. It puts even the drug addict into a bottomless pit. It does nothing to produce a positive change, and in 25 years or more, the public reaps exactly what is sown. But for a while, the problem is out of sight, out of mind. "Those criminals" are somebody's children. They might be yours, they could be mine and I would rather see my child, who is of great value, reach “the bottom” and have the opportunity to change and pull himself out of a hole, even after many, many wrong choices. We, as parents had better take this merciless Three-Strike law serious and get to Doug Kieso’s group meetings, (Families to Amend California’s Three Strikes.” Mercy triumphs over judgment.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bakersfield Californian, Filed 3/23/99
Law called too extreme
Mr. Lowrimore, (letter of 3/19), you need to get your facts straight. It is not “stupid people,” “idiots”, crooks, lawyers and judges who are trying to amend the California Three-Strike law. It is mostly law abiding, tax-paying parents and spouses who are fighting the system because we think true justice gives appropriate punishment, when necessary, but punishment that is proportionate to the offense, and that allows room for the offender to be restored to the family and community. We believe in restorative justice, such as drug treatment for those who committed crimes while under the influence of drugs, education and community service.
Do you think the law would be fair if it decided that traffic violators who run red lights, speed and tailgate were thrown in jail for as little as 1-5 years instead of paying a fine of $104 (which could be more in penalties and assessments if you have been convicted of other traffic violations in the past three years). After all, these drivers are a danger to society and we might as well get them off the street BEFORE they kill someone. And some traffic clerks, etc., include cited drivers as criminals, (stupid, of course). Are you one of these?
This is what the three-strikes law is all about. Disproportiante to the offense committed. A law that was written to get past offenders off the street as a prevention for what they MIGHT do in the future.
Of the 4884 of Third Strike cases as of December 31, 1998--only 38.8% are identified as crimes against persons. A breakdown by offenses shows that most strikes are for non-violent and non-serious offenses. Nearly 75% of Second Strikers and 50% of Third Strikers are for non-violent and non-serious offenses. Most common “strikes” charges are drugs, theft and burglary. Our children and spouses have been sentenced under the three-strike law for 25 years to life because of bad choices, minor offenses, such as possession of drugs, stealing $20, or a t-shirt, running from the police. Do you really think this length of time in prison with violent criminals is a good, fair punishment?
Three-strikers are judged again for their first offense, whether it was 20 or 30 years prior. It doesn’t matter that they accepted a plea bargain. No matter that they paid their debt. Today, if they commit a minor offense, the State of California is anxious to put them in prison, where they will be able to do free labor for various companies who have contracts with California State Correctional Department. California has found the prison industrial complex provides great competition in the world market. All on the backs of our loved ones.
Ask yourself, would you like to go to prison for life for what you did 20 years ago, even if you paid your debt? Or for what you MIGHT do in the future? What would you want for you or your child? To be destroyed, or restored?
Barbara J. Brooks
Fullerton, CA
----------------------------------------
http://www.ocregister.com/liberty/letters.shtml
Published May 7, 2000,
Orange County Register
Barbara Brooks
Three‑strikers' get no reasonable legal chance
Recently Matt Swearingen, ex‑star athlete from Villa Park High School, killed his father. Through a plea bargain based on his past "good record," he was sentenced to 21 years. Because it's a determinate sentence, Swearingen will do 85 percent of the time, or 17 years and 10 months. As his first strike, he won't spend his whole life in prison.
A third‑striker, on the other hand, even if his/her third conviction is for a crime not serious or violent, is not allowed a plea bargain and is given an enhanced, indeterminate sentence of 25 years to life and will not receive any time off for good behavior. He/she will face the parole board no earlier than 25 years. Out of thousands of prisoners up for parole, California has only paroled a handful, so freedom is unlikely.
Justice was not served in either case because the judgment was based on the past record, not the present offense. Families to Amend California's Three Strikes (FACTS), believe the time should fit the crime. Where are our values when someone who takes a life receives the amenities and gets out long before the non‑violent third‑striker.
Barbara Brooks
Fullerton, CA 92838