FINAL
THREE STRIKES SYMPOSIUM
MAY 2, 2011
INTRODUCTION
 Enacted 1994
 Three Strikes law works to remove
dangerous recidivist criminals from our
communities
 But, some petty offenders have received 25to-life for relatively minor crimes
FINAL
 In some cases, 25 years to life for some
felonies is totally disproportionate
punishment.
LADA POLICY
 In December 2000, just after first sworn into
office, instituted current policy.
 Policy set forth what should be a 25 to life
three strike case.
2
FINAL
 With two or more qualifying prior felony
convictions, case presumed to be third strike
warranting minimum 25-to-life sentence,
when new offense is serious or violent felony
 Presumption may be rebutted.
Current offense not involve use of
firearm/deadly weapon, injury to victim,
violence or threat of violence
 Presumed second strike if current offense is
NOT “serious or violent” felony
3
FINAL
 Three strikes punishment sought for those
who commit serious or violent felonies or
whose records justify imposition of lengthy
prison term
 Petty offenders who pose no apparent threat
to public safety are appropriately sentenced
under the Second Strike sentencing scheme
4
FINAL
 At my December 4, 2000 swearing-in
ceremony, I promised that my new three
strikes policy “…will assure the
proportionality is achieved by giving weight
to the nature of the new offense” and then
went on to say that the policy as designed
would assume evenhanded application
countywide.
5
FINAL
 “This new policy will operate to prevent
coercive plea bargaining. Very importantly,
it will allow us to use our resources in a
targeted way against serious violent predator
recidivist criminals. They will get 25 to life
for committing a new serious or violent
offense.”
 “The new policy will allow for appropriate
stiff sentences for those who commit new
non-violent and non-serious offenses. Let
there be no mistake about that.”
6
FINAL
 This policy has served residents of LA
County well, – – helped to reduce rate of
violent crime while dispensing proportional
punishment that fits both crime and
defendant’s criminal history
7
FINAL
COURT DECISIONS
 1996 California Supreme Court
Romero
 2001 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Andrade v. Atty. General of CA held
that three strikes is unconstitutional
as applied to Andrade because it
imposed a sentence grossly
disproportionate to his crimes (theft of
9 video tapes) 3-0
8
FINAL
 2003 U.S. Supreme Court
Lockyer v. Andrade, Three Strikes Law
upheld, 5-4 overturning 9th Circuit
Ewing v. California, Three Strikes not
cruel and unusual (Torrance, golf
clubs)
4-4-1
9
FINAL
PROPOSITION 66
 Prop 66 – The Battle of Poster Children
 Opposed Prop 66, because it would have
destroyed an effective tool to punish repeat
criminal offenders who had been convicted
of serious and violent felonies.
 November 2004, defeated by voters 53%-47%
At the last minute, there was an infusion of
millions of dollars which helped defeat Prop
66.
10
FINAL
ROAD TO MODEST REFORM
 Following defeat of Prop 66, then Governor
Arnold Schwarzenneger said he was willing
to “look into the three strikes system to see
if there was anything that ought to be
adjusted”
 “Obviously, there was something there
initially in which people agreed there was a
problem that needed fixing.” - Mark
Baldassare, Public Policy institute of
California
11
FINAL
 “There was sentiment out there to make
some corrections to three strikes to
eliminate the possibility of prosecutorial
indiscretion.” James Fox, San Mateo County
District Attorney.
 “The public has become increasingly aware
of outrageous injustices in highly-publicized,
heart-rending cases at the same time they
feel the weight of added costs to the
system.” – Mark Kleiman, Professor of Public
Policy, UCLA
12
FINAL
 “I don’t like how it is being applied currently.
I think the net has been cast far wider than it
needed to be. I think the wrong people are
serving life sentences.” – Bernard Melekian,
Pasadena Chief of Police
 “We’d agree some tweaking of three strikes
is in order.” – San Gabriel Valley Tribune
Editorial
13
FINAL
 “When California voters approved the three
strikes law a dozen years ago, surely they
never imagined it would be used to send to
prison for life someone who stole two pairs
of pants or a car radio.” – Sacramento Bee
Editorial
FIX IT TO SAVE IT
 Tried to preserve essential elements of
powerful and effective crime-fighting tool
and insure that it is used with justice
14
FINAL
STATISTICS
 LA County has third highest three strike
prison commitments rate per 100,000 among
15 most populous counties
 Highest commitments from Kern County
 Second highest – Sacramento County
 Since I have been DA, LA County has been
sentencing three strikers appropriately
15
FINAL
ATTEMPTS AT MODEST REFORM
 SB 1642 – Senator Romero
The Three Strikes Reform ACT of 2006
would have restricted most severe
punishments to serious and violent
offenders and those whose current or
previous crimes warrant long term
imprisonment
 Patterned after our successful LA County
policy
16
FINAL
 Remediation scheme - - - would have
permitted a limited number of prisoners
serving disproportionate sentences to apply
for resentencing, in the court’s discretion,
under two strikes provisions.
 Must preserve essential elements of
powerful and effective crime fighting tool
 However, must also take steps to insure that
it is used justly
 Unfortunately, SB 1642 never got voted out
of Senate Public Safety Committee
17
FINAL
CONCLUSION
 Still believe we must have a way to remediate
those limited disproportionate sentences by
allowing courts to take another look.
 “As I said in July 1996 and cited in an LA
Times article,”
 “Every time a deputy makes a decision on a
three-strikes case, it’s a half-million dollar
decision and part of a billion-dollar
consequence,” Cooley says, citing studies
on the expense of incarcerating someone for
life.
18
FINAL
 “You have to ask yourself, is this worth a
half-million dollars of taxpayers’ money to
take care of this guy for the next 25 years,
then have to pay for his open-heart surgery
and his kidney dialysis when he’s 60 or 65?”
19