The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Three Strikes Grand Slam

11.4.02 @ 12:01AM

THREEPEATS
Re: Francis X. Rocca's California Justice Strikes Out:

Interesting article by Francis Rocca on California's three-strikes law. One point that he doesn't mention, however, is that for a person with two strikes on him already, the penalty for shoplifting and the penalty for murder are the same: life in prison. (The only exception are crimes that draw the death penalty, and most states inflict capital punishment so infrequently as to make it pointless as a deterrent.) A person faced with the prospect of life in the slammer might as well pull a gun and kill the person who's attempting to apprehend him: that is the rational choice. Why not? He literally has nothing to lose.
-- Fred Butzen

Unlike your contributor Mr. Francis X. Rocca, I shed no tears for Leandro Andrade, the repeat criminal convicted of stealing videotapes and sentenced under the "three strikes" law.

As Mr. Rocca admits, Andrade was convicted of three prior residential burglaries. There is no way of knowing how many residential burglaries he committed without a criminal conviction resulting. I can assure you, however, that if I caught Andrade breaking into my residence, I would have no qualms about shooting him dead.

We need "three strikes" laws precisely because someone like Andrade can commit three residential burglaries and soon be out on the street again and able to steal the videotapes that (by charitable mathematics) resulted in his third "strike."

I do agree with Mr. Rocca on one point. There is no magic in the number three. Perhaps, given Mr. Rocca's European residence, he would be more comfortable with the "Soccer Rule": Yellow card on the first felony, red card and permanent removal from the game on the second.
-- J. Menicucci

Mr. Rocca's article was certainly interesting. I specifically like his conclusion of what happened to paying one's debt to society. Being on the other side of the hill, I remember in my youth the ditch and road gangs in Florida that dotted the landscape. It would be fitting that Mr. Andrade be introduced to that venerable institution called the road gang. If nothing else Mr. Andrade would lack the free time to be stealing tapes from Kmart. Unfortunately that practice is no longer practiced by most states today. It's "cruel and inhumane" is the usual refrain. But those gangs left an impression. My father would say (every time he spotted a gang) -- "If you S---- Up, this is where you End Up." Ahhhh for the good ole days ...
-- John McGinnis

The important thing is that Californians like this law, generally. It has been reported that many career criminals left the state after three strikes passed. These people are smart enough to remove themselves from a hazardous situation so why should those who continue to flout the law be given any special favors? Most are convinced that criminals who are frequently caught in the act have previously committed many crimes that were not detected. Society is improved by the removal of career criminals after the third opportunity for them to change their habits.
-- Eric Walter

There's nothing wrong with "three-strikes" laws. They serve a serious purpose and are a legitimate facet of jurisprudence. They've been around in this country at least since the thirties, when old-time gangsters subject to them were called "three-time losers."

They have nothing to do with baseball, and attempts to minimize and ridicule them are pernicious.

But then again, some people minimize and ridicule all attempts to punish criminals. They use dishonest arguments and sophistries like calling them "cruel and unusual punishment" -- which the opponents themselves know is not what the Constitution means by that phrase. In short, their argument is a lie and they know it. But they're willing to lie in service of a "higher purpose." That's the absolute curse the ACLU and such people have inflicted on this country over the past few decades.

I'm not sure, if I had been the judge, I would have invoked the three-time-loser clause in the two (carefully-selected) cases. For one thing, I wouldn't have bumped Andrade up twice. First his misdemeanor was "enhanced " to a felony, then he was declared a three-time loser on account of the felony. I think it should be like sales at stores -- you can't compound a discount offer. You can take advantage of one sale price, but then you can't get an extra discount by offering another coupon or invoking another, separate sale offer. It's one to a customer.

Likewise, I think a criminal's status should only be enhanced once. He shouldn't be declared a three-time loser on the basis of his third felony, if the felony was previously enhanced from a misdemeanor. With that proviso, I would be more confident with three-time-loser laws as written and recognized, than with social meddlers who have a hidden axe to grind, in that they oppose all punishment of criminals because they think it's really society that is to blame. God preserve us from such.
-- Larry Eubank
Bloomington, IN

One more adage: "When you are merciful to the wicked, in the end, you will become wicked to the merciful."
-- David Benveniste, S.F.

WHY THEY RUN
Re: Paul Beston's The Sweet Taste of Humble Pie:

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Television, Abortion, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, NATO