Steven Mathews, Nonviolent Third Striker
On September 17, Daily Journal staff writer Liz Valsamis wrote a front-page article (not available online) that largely amounted to a puff piece for the Trojan Horse Initiative, a.k.a. Proposition 66. The article quoted LAPD Sgt. Ron Cato, without contradiction, of saying the following:
I voted for it [i.e., the three strikes law] because of how it was sold to me. [It would] put serious violent offenders away for life, and I never believed it’d be changed to include all felonies. I felt misled.
Never mind that the original three strikes law was never “changed.” Never mind that it was never “sold” to anyone as anything other than what it is - a law that allows judges to enhance the sentence for all felonies, based on the defendant’s past convictions for certain “serious” or “violent” ones. Never mind that the Daily Journal purports to be a the daily newspaper for all California attorneys, who might benefit even more than the average citizen would from having these factual misstatements corrected. Facts don’t really matter, you see. Only Mr. Cato’s “feelings” about them do.
Despite Ms. Valsamis’s worst efforts, some useful tidbits did make their way into her story. On page 9, which is the wrong side of the jump^tm, there is a photograph of a certain Steven Mathews, one of the tens of thousands of “nonviolent” offenders who will soon be a free man if Propostiion 66 passes. The Journal reports that Mathews’s offenses include a murder, a kidnapping, a rape of his own mother, and an assault. According to this prosecutors’ white paper, Mathews’s rap sheet is longer still, including two attempted murders, two robberies, and assault with intent to commit murder. All agree, however, that his third strike (and the only one committed after the three strikes law was enacted in 1994) was a felony weapons charge, in which Mathews was caught drinking in public and found in possession of a two-foot machete and a geological hammer with the words “fag finder reminder” inscribed on its handle. Per Prop 66, this will not be a strike, and Mathews will be released
Anyone who thinks Steve Mathews will go straight is living in a dream world. Quite simply, a vote for Proposition 66 is a vote for Steve Mathews to viciously attack, and likely kill, another innocent person. No need to worry, though. It’s a large state, so chances are his next victim won’t be you, or anyone you know.
October 13th, 2004 at 3:56 pm
I heard the tail-end of some report on the radio that the Prop 66 had been running at 2/3 support in some poll that had been done.
I’m very concerned about it. Is there someone who has a clear handle on how Prop 66 has been polling out there?
October 13th, 2004 at 4:07 pm
I just googled “Proposition 66″ + “polling,” and came up with this:
I find it stunning and equally disheartening to think that California would weaken it’s sentencing laws. It’s sheer idiocy!
October 13th, 2004 at 4:55 pm
Yup. At this point I’m almost willing to abandon the argument that the three strikes law should not be modified, focusing instead on convincing as many people as possible that THIS modification is not the right one.
October 13th, 2004 at 9:47 pm
It’s going to majorly suck if prop 66 passes! :whip:
California sentencing has never, NEVER been too harsh. Spit!
October 13th, 2004 at 11:09 pm
I miss the good old days, when every single felony was punishable by death.
October 14th, 2004 at 7:12 am
Clark: I think some of Gil Garcetti’s cases were a bit over the top, but courts have corrected those abuses since then. The one aspect of the three strikes law I would change is to end the “double-dipping” effect that arises when the three strikes law is applied to felonies that are only considered felonies because of the defendant’s priors. I wouldn’t require the third strike (or the second, when that’s the one being charged under the lesser-known “two strikes” provisions) to be violent or serious, but I would require it to be a felony that can stand alone as a felony. Either that, or end the pretense that the charged strike must be a felony, and allow second/third strike enhancements for all crimes (or, more likely, all felonies and certain misdemeanors).
Angry: That rule was only as good as the laws determining what offenses are felonies. Wasn’t sodomy a felony at one point? Thanks to one of the stupidest voter initiatives ever, possession of horse meat for human consumption is a felony in California. I’d hate to see anyone executed over that, unless that person just happened to be the author of the initiative in question. Or Rob Reiner, I s’pose.
October 14th, 2004 at 7:06 pm
I always thought the flaw in the 3 strikes law pertained to the use of the term “or serious crime”, and exactly how that charge is employed. Shortly after enactment of the new law, the media reported numereous stories with examples of two non-violent crimes, such as dealing a small quantity of pot, then being hung with a third strike, such as stealing an expensive bicycle from a garage and getting life, or near life, as a sentence. I admit that I was unaware of any alterations in the implementation of three strikes, but it always seemed logical that two strikes of violent crimes should be sufficient for extreme sentences, but the “serious felony” term in the Proposition is still worrisome. I’ll certainly vote no on Prop 66, but I still think it’s badly flawed.
October 14th, 2004 at 7:38 pm
I work with the guy who prosecuted Mathews. Believe me, he is upset at the possibility the guy could be released.