Three Strikes You’re Out Law Essay written by: cv5199 We have all heard of the newest anti-crime law, the “Three strikesand youre out” law.
It wasnt easy getting this law from the bill stagein Sacramento to the law stage, because it is not a criminal friendlylaw. Meaning that this laws purpose is to bring pain, suffering, andintimidation to criminals. Our state government was basically ran bythe Assembly Speaker Willie Brown, now mayor of San Francisco. Brown had the power to choose who sat on what committee in thehouse, and using this he could terminate any bill he did not agreewith. And with this attitude it took a lot of patients and perseveranceby the people trying to pass this bill.
But how did the bill become abill? I will answer this question with help of the Kimber Reynoldsstory. Monday, June 29, 1992 in Fresno, California a young woman wasbrutally murdered outside The Daily Planet, a restaurant patronized bythe local young people. The girl was visiting home for the summerafter being in the Los Angeles area attending school. Her and a friendwere getting into their car when two guys on a motorcycle rode upnext to Kimber Reynolds blocking her in, taking her purse, and beatingher into submission.
The story made the 11 oclock news only minutesafter her father had gone to bed. When police ran a background checkon the two suspected men, Joeseph Micheal Davis and DouglasWalker, both men had recently been released on parole with multipleoffenses on their records. Unfortunately Davis was never brought inbecause when police were attempting to arrest him he began firing,wounding unsuspecting police officers and ultimately being killed. Douglas Walker was convicted of accessory to murder. Mike Reynolds, Kimbers father, went on the radio on a local radioshow called the Ray Appleton Show, KMJ 580. There he would discusshis outrage about how he was sick of repeat offenders being locked uponly to be released after a fraction of the sentence was completed.
Heswore to the people listening that he was going to do somethingabout the problem, even if it takes him forever. Listening to that showwas Fresno Assemblyman Bill Jones (R). He was interested in theissue and arranged a meeting with Mike. They discussed ideas abouthow they could solve this problem. With that in mind Mike used some connections and gathered onesuperior, one appellate, and one municipal court judge, as well as awell-known local defense attorney, a representative from the FresnoPolice Department, an expert in juvenile justice and Ray Appleton.
The men did some research and drew up some ideas. Their finallegislative proposal was as follows: Double the sentence for a conviction of any felony if there is a previousserious or violent felony conviction. Triple the sentence or twenty-five years to life, whichever is greater, forany combination of two prior violent or serious felony convictionscoupled with any new felony. Probation, a suspended sentence, or a commitment to a diversionprogram as a substitute for serving time in prison is prohibited for felonswith at least one prior conviction of a serious or violent felony. Any felon with at least one prior serious or violent felony convictionmust serve any subsequent felony sentence in a state prison (as opposed toa county jail). Terms are to be served consecutively, rather than concurrently.
Maximum allowable time off for good behavior is reduced to 20 percent. Juvenile convictions for serious of violent felonies count as priorconvictions if the felony was committed when the juvenile was sixteen orseventeen years old. When a defendant has at least one prior conviction for a serious orviolent felony, the district attorney is required to plead and prove allknown prior felony convictions. Prior felony convictions cannot be usedas part of a plea-bargain. Now that Mike had the proposal he had Bill Jones submit it to the statelegislature. Right away the bill was sent to the Assembly Public Safetycommittee to be approved.
This committee is known as a killer oftough-on-crime bills, and consisted of eight members, Paula Boland,Richard Rainey, Tom Umberg, Tom Bates, John Burton, Barbara Lee, andcommittee chairman Robert Epple. Both Boland and Rainey wereRepublicans while the rest were Democrats, and one vacant seat due tounknown reasons. This committee was moderate or even moderatelyconservative, but because Willie Brown had the power to choosemembers of the committee he chose those people whom he thought wouldsway the vote towards a liberal direction, which did not reflect thephilosophy of the whole assembly. Mike also had asked FresnoAssemblyman Jim Costa (D) to be a co-author of their proposal, Mikewanted a bipartisan approach to the legislature. Meaning he wanted tohave both major parties represented in the proposal. The men had two Republican and two Democratic votes in their favor andonly needed one more vote to pass, but unfortunately they did not get thatone vote because Brown set up the committee and didnt want atough-on-crime bill.
Berkeley Assemblyman John Burton gave Jones anoption to re-write their proposal the way he sees fit, or have the proposaltaken from the floor again and put to another vote. The problem with thelatter was that if it failed again there would never be another next time. Jones and Mike Reynolds did neither of the two, their mission now was totake it straight to the people of the state and find out what they think. The two men did exactly that, paying for publicity out of their ownpockets. Eventually they did get corporate assistance from organizationslike the NRA (National Rifle Association) and the CCPOA (CaliforniaCorrectional Peace Officers Association), as well as others. Their effortswould not be fruitless because they knew that if they could get enoughsignatures that the proposal would be put on the November, 1994 electionballot.
The men had hundreds of thousands of signatures that lead to theinduction of the proposal to the ballot as “Prop 184. ” The men made a fewminor changes to the proposal but in the end it basically read as before. The men knew they had to keep it simple because they knew people wouldnot vote for something they could not understand. There is a lot of talk about serious and violent felonies in the law andthere are certain offenses that must be met in order to qualify as a seriousor violent felony.
The felonies that would fall under both categorieswould be those that are beyond misdemeanors and/or carry an extensivesentence. With the passage of “Three strikes” some argued that it would ignite anincrease in violence against law enforcement officers, putting them indanger as they tried to maintain public safety. The American CivilLiberties Union argued that criminals facing a life sentence if they were tobe convicted would be far more likely to resist arrest, assault officers andkill witnesses. Since the enactment of the law violence against lawenforcement officers has not risen but fallen. In the three years prior to thelaw assault against law enforcers dropped 14.
9% while since theenactment it has dropped 11. 9%, setting a downward trend. Some studies have argued that the population of prisons and jails will risesubstantially because of the increased prison sentences, limitations on theability of repeat offenders to earn credits to reduce time, and prisonersrequired to be sentenced to prison rather than jails. Despite predictions tothe contrary, the growth in the prison population since the enactment hasslowed. In the four years prior to the law the prison population increasedby 37%. Since the enactment the prison population has grown only 32%.
That is near the percentage for the nation at 27% excluding California. While jail populations have increased during this era, the average numberof persons booked over this period has dropped. The average number ofpeople booked per month in county jails hit a record low in 1995 with97,589. This is because 6% of criminals are responsible for 70% of allcrime.
During the debate over the “Three Strikes law, opponents argued that theprison system would become overfilled with non-violent offendersserving life terms. Trying to prove this true a study conducted by theCenter on Juvenile and Criminal Justice in 1996 concluded that 85% ofthe people sentenced under the “Three Strikes” law received their thirdstrike for a non-violent crime. It reported that 192 individuals wereconvicted of marijuana possession while only 40 were convicted ofmurder, 25 of rape, and 24 of kidnapping. At the end of 1997, Californiasinmate population totaled 152,577.
23. 2% of the inmates (35,411), wereimprisoned for second- and third-strike convictions. There were repeated warnings about the cost to implement the new law,but few have addressed the other side of the equation and the savings tothe state, in lives and in dollars. Had our 1993 crime rate continuedunaffected over these past few years, nearly 815,000 additional crimeswould have been committed in California, including 217,000+ violentcrimes. We would have suffered more than 4,000 homicide victims;6000+ women would have been victims of rape. Also the savings indollars is between $5.
8 billion and $15. 5 billion since the enactment ofthe “Three Strikes” law. There has been swift and dramatic impact on crime since the enactment ofthe “Three Strikes” law. The crime rate has dropped more than 30%. Butthere are other factors that play a part in this reduction like crimeprevention, and community policing. However there has been a significantdrop in the crime rate.
Also the predictions about cost, over populatingand others have not come true. With all of the opposition out there tryingto tear this law down I believe that California can not afford to do withoutthis law because it is saving our state money and lives.Words/ Pages : 1,865 / 24
