Comments on: Steven Mathews, Nonviolent Third Striker

By: Patterico

Patterico — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:38:31 +0000

I work with the guy who prosecuted Mathews. Believe me, he is upset at the possibility the guy could be released.

By: Martin Kavanagh

Martin Kavanagh — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:06:25 +0000

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.

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 14:12:25 +0000

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.

By: The Angry Clam

The Angry Clam — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 06:09:14 +0000

I miss the good old days, when every single felony was punishable by death.

By: clark

clark — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:47:10 +0000

It’s going to majorly suck if prop 66 passes! :whip:

California sentencing has never, NEVER been too harsh. Spit!

By: Xrlq

Xrlq — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:55:36 +0000

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.

By: clark

clark — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 23:07:34 +0000

I just googled “Proposition 66″ + “polling,” and came up with this:

Early polling suggest voters may opt to change current law.

The most recent poll by the nonpartisan Field Institute, based on interviews with 500 likely voters in August, reported that 69 percent of respondents supported the proposition, with just 19 percent opposed. The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

I find it stunning and equally disheartening to think that California would weaken it’s sentencing laws. It’s sheer idiocy!

By: clark

clark — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:56:54 +0000

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?