James Andrew Abernathy of La Habra was convicted on Monday of an egregious act of animal cruelty. More specifically, Mr. Abernathy adopted a German Shepherd from the animal shelter, which he named after his then-girlfriend, Marie. Later, following an argument with the human Marie, Mr. Abernathy took out his frustration on the canine Marie by beating her with a golf club, ramming a stake through her heart, and cutting her head off. Despite the extreme violence and depravity of this particular act, it is not considered a “violent” or “serious” felony for purposes of California’s three strikes law. Nevertheless, despite having committed an allegedly nonviolent and nonserious felony that the law considers equivalent to stealing a few golf clubs or bullying a kid out of his pizza, Mr. Abernathy now faces 25 years to life in prison. The reason is that he has two past convictions for assault with a deadly weapon in 1986,^* which counted as strikes one and two. The third strike can be any felony, so in this case, animal cruelty fit the bill. But if the “reform” initiative passes this November, Abernathy will be out in three years, at the very latest.

Next time a would-be three strikes “reformer” lectures you about the plight of all those poor, misunderstood, “nonviolent” offenders getting 25 to life, just remember that people who torture and murder innocent animals are among the “non-violent” criminals these guys are trying to protect.

^*Note that the three strikes law was not enacted until eight years later, in 1994. Someone is bound to object to Abernathy’s enhanced sentence on that basis, as well. Fortunately, the ex post facto argument is a nonstarter.

UPDATE: Patterico has overruled me on this one. While most of the so-called reform efforts focus on “violent” offenses, the proposed bill would apply to “serious” ones as well. Section 1192.7(c) of the Penal Code defines a “serious” felony to include “any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon.” So assuming that the intiative does not amend this provision (the SOS says it redefines “violent” and “serious,” but doesn’t say how), and assuming that the news story is correct that the 1986 offenses were both tried separately, Abernathy will not get a pass as a result of this initiative passing. Others whose crimes are morally indistinguishable from his, however, will. Abernathy himself would, if his two 1986 convictions had been secured at a single trial rather than two separate proceedings. So too would anyone in Abernathy’s shoes, if he had the good sense to kick his dog to death before stabbing and decapitating it.