|
Three Strikes Reform
Despite being outspent by a 3-1 margin, supporters of Three Strikes reform came very close in November to changing California's draconian Three Strikes law. Let the Governor and your elected representatives know: now that the smoke and the deceptions have cleared, you expect them to roll up their sleeves and solve the obvious injustices in our Three Strikes law.
Dear [ Decision Maker ] , I wanted to let you know that I am extremely disappointed by the campaign against reforming our Three Strikes law. When California voters passed the Three Strikes initiative in 1994, they did not intend to treat petty theft or simple drug possession the same as serious, violent crimes such as rape and murder. The costs, both human and financial, of not making a distinction between serious crimes and crimes such as petty theft are staggering. The law has cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in largely unnecessary spending. This money could be better spent improving our education and health care systems. Even many of those who were opposed to Proposition 66 agreed: Three Strikes needs a fix. I'm writing to let you know that California deserves elected leaders who are strong enough and brave enough to make the needed changes.
Sincerely, |
Campaign Launched: |
| Background Information |
Reform California's Three Strikes Laws: Common-Sense Sentencing
Three Strikes Reform
In 1994, spurred by the murder of Polly Klaas, Californians passed a Three Strikes law. Californians overwhelmingly support that law -- but they believe it targets violent and serious felons. In fact, more than half of the people punished under our Three Strikes laws are convicted of non-violent offenses, and Polly Klaas' grandfather, Joe Klaas, now supports Three Strikes reform. Proposition 66, an effort to reform our Three Strikes law, failed only because proponents were outspent 3-1 and opponents conducted a well-funded scare campaign.
Consider these examples:
- Steven Davis and his girfriend killed themselves after Davis was notified by the Sacramento District Attorney that he had two strikes, which would force him to serve 25 years to life for possessing marijuana and methamphetamine.
- Robert Blasi received a 31-year sentence for stealing a pair of AA batteries.
- Nathan Thomas, a young man with a history of homelessness, shoplifted three packs of T-shirts from J.C. Penny and was sentenced to 25 years in prison.
In fact, our Three Strikes law is so broad that it treats stealing t-shirts as equal to rape or murder. People who have stolen a pizza or forged a check are now locked up for twenty-five years to life, just like murderers and rapists. Californians never intended this.
The Principles of Three Strikes Reform
1. The Punishment Should Fit the Crime. Petty theft and drug possession are not the same as murder and rape.
2. We Should Target Our Resources Wisely. California has racked up a $6 billion Three Strikes bill so far -- and the costs mount every day. The Legislative Analyst's Office noted that reforming Three Strikes would save hundreds of millions of dollars every year.
3. Deterring Violent Crime Should Be the Priority. According to a 2004 study by the Justice Policy Institute, in the 1990's crime rates actually fell faster in Alameda and San Francisco counties, where Three Strikes laws are used to target only violent and serious offenses, than in Los Angeles and Sacramento counties, where prosecutors applied the law broadly to all felonies.
4. Californians still support reform. In poll after poll throughout the campaign, Californians recognized that there are flaws in our Three Strikes law. Prop. 66 was defeated but there's strong support for reform.
