Landmark Calif. Sentencing Law Back Before Voters

[Freddie Stubbs]

By Dan Whitcomb

LOS ANGELES, Oct 4 (Reuters) - Californians who a decade ago voted in a landslide for a "Three Strikes" measure imposing long prison terms on career criminals are being asked to scale back that law by those who say it has unjustly snared small-time offenders.

But the proposed fix, which would amend Three Strikes through a November ballot initiative, has run into a buzz saw of opposition from across the political spectrum -- including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, all 68 of the state's district attorneys, Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, and every major state taxpayers and victim's rights group.

They say Proposition 66 would gut one of the most effective pieces of crime legislation ever passed in California and, because it would be retroactive, release as many as 26,000 violent felons.

"The proponents (of Proposition 66) accuse us of using scare tactics, and absolutely we are," said Brian Gurwitz, an Orange County prosecutor on leave to fight the ballot initiative. "It's scary to let pedophiles and rapists and murderers back into community. People should be frightened. It's a legitimate response to this dangerous initiative."

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&u=/nm/20041004/ts_nm/campaign_california_dc&printer=1

[reprobate]

1. The mistake most americans make is to think that the ..........

....American Justice System has anything to do with justice. It is all about and only about winning. And the prosecuting attorney has all the power needed to win in almost every case, something that cant be said of the defense. Prosecuters base their carreers on the number of cases they win, touting their wins as keeping the citizens safe, when actually they do not care whether the defendant is guilty or innocent, as long as they can carve another notch in their law degree.

I much prefer the english system, which assigns barristers to represent both the crown and the defendant. Each could be on the other side next time. Is there anyone familiar with their system to confirm my impression?

[Booster]

2. I voted for the 3 strikes measure when it first came around

and I totally remember it stated it was for violent crimes, which I agreed with. I then did jury duty for 4 different cases which were all 3 strike cases, and found it to be totally unfair. Won't go into detail on all of them, but 3 were not violent crimes in my mind. One guy was up (3rd time) for taking a baseball bat and beating the neighbor's lawn mower to a pulp. His other two crimes were not even this violent and, under the law, we had to send the guy to 25 years in prison. It's up to the City Prosecutor to decide which crimes become 3 strikes and our's was a little overzealous in this area. I am voting against it this time because the people with power abused it the first go around and until they come up with one that is at least fair and they mean violent crimes against other people, then I'll vote for it next time. 3 out of the 4 cases I did, I felt really bad after they were over.

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. It would appear that it is not losing support among elected officials

:shrug: