Three Strikes by Carla Brachais
The Three Strikes Law was presented to Californians as a solution to
the problem of violent and dangerous criminals slipping through our judicial
system and back out on to our streets. It sounded ideal. I voted for it. In
hindsight, I feel deceived. Had I been less dependent on political
advertisement for information concerning the issues on the ballot, I don't
think I would have made the mistake of voting for the three strikes law.
Had it been accurately pitched, I would have voted against it. I think it
would have been effective it were applied as it was advertised. I realize it is
best to vote on issues after reading them in their entirety and having a full
understanding. However, I assure you that politicians bank on the fact that
voters will opt for the television advertisement over the task of reading the
long and hard to understand version in print.
Conveniently omitted
was that nonviolent felons could also be three strike candidates, and the fact
that jurors are not allowed knowledge of the defendants prior strike status.
Only after they deliver a guilty verdict for petty theft do they become aware
they just sentenced a man to twenty-five years in prison. Which brings me to my
point. The private prison business. It is big business. Twenty-five to life in
custody means guaranteed business.
The bureaucrats, politicians and
the private prisons are all working together for one cause. One generating
business for the other. Unfortunately, that cause is not to rehabilitate
criminals. Politicians play on our fears to get laws like 'three strikes and
you're out' passed. The slogan, with it's all American ring, was even designed
to sell. I would like to know just what these lawmakers plan to do with the
multitude of convicts, upon their release, in twenty-five years when their
parents are likely deceased and have no other means of support. They will not
be offered rehabilitation or learn a trade while in prison and will be more of
a burden on society then, than they were when they went in.
I suppose
they'll let someone else clean up that mess while they are busy doing business
deals. I think it's about time we take a closer look at this mandatory 25 years
to life sentencing and see what's really going on. Maybe you won't care that
politicians are capitalizing on crime as long as they promise to keep your
family safe from dangerous killers. But, you might care to know that most of
these "dangerous killers" have never committed a violent act in their life.
Most haven't even had a chance to grow up before they were locked up. Parenting
is something we strongly encourage yet we won't assume the job as a nation.
Imagine reporting to a parent their child stole money from you and later
discovering the child's fingers were cut off as punishment.
I would be
willing to bet, if given the option, most of those sentenced to twenty-five
years (or life) for stealing would rather have had their fingers cut off. We
should allow people of a jury the full understanding of what their verdict will
impose on the defendant on trial, and our judges the decision to impose a
punishment to fit the crime and do away with this mandatory sentencing. Violent
criminals should be the only persons prosecuted with this three strikes
law.
Carla Brachais
Please send questions or comments to factsla@sbcglobal.net.
Everything on this web site can be distributed to the general public,
reprinted, or reposted without permission of Families to Amend California's
3-Strikes.
Date last modified: 10/13/99.