Letters to the Editor

Mr. Mellisas says the 3 Strikes bills will lock up only those who commit "heinous acts of violence:" he says we should"get the facts and judge for ourselves." 

The fact is that the Senate bill includes 14 offenses for which a defendant can be convicted WITHOUT HARMING or INTENDING TO HARM anyone, and the House bill,H.3818 contains 9 such offenses.  The Senate bill includes entering or breaking and entering,(which could  confine  homeless people seeking shelter  to 3 years - at a cost of $40,000 a year,)possession of a prohibited weapon in airport security areas(this could be leaving your nail file or pocketknife in your backpack) and others.  Both Senate and House bills include as 3-Strikes crimes f"carrying dangerous weapons." Like other laws in the 3-Strikes laundry list, this sounds "heinous" enough, but people have been convicted of this because they were carrying a knife with a blade longer than 1.5 inches.  Similar offenses are a number of "assault and battery" offenses.  These sound horrendous, but they allow for conviction with no physical contact, no intent to harm. "Assault and battery" can be an unconsented touching of any kind, with no injury or intent to harm.  If  a man throws a shoe at his brother, he should perhaps be punished - but not confinded to jail for a mandatory 5 years or for life.

There is not space here to discuss all the laws that should be cut out of the 3-Strikes laundry list, but you can get a factual 37-page discussion of all the fine points from lmatos@plsma.org (Prisoners' Legal Services.) 

I've been talking to legislators about these laws since November, and it seems to me that not only Mr. Mellisas but also our  pro-3-Strikes legislators and governor have just been too lazy to read the the bills with a lawyer's help(though most of them ARE lawyers.) They apparently only know people who have never been charged, or who know they can defend themselves, paying bail and hiring a good lawyer. They don't realize how skewed against the poor our  "justice" system is They have no clue what it is like to have a family member in jail without the money for bail or a good lawyer, or be stuck there themselves.

There are other glaring faults in these bills, as well. One is the minimum 9 month parole to be added to every felony sentence.  This clause will greatly enlarge the Parole department at taxpayer expensej.  Nearly 30 % of prisoners are in jail for parole violations, not "new" crimes - for things like missing an appointment or urine test, not reporting for leaf-raking.  Again, year served this way  costs taxpayers $40,000. Yet no research has been able to show that mandatory parole reduces recividism , except in women and first-time offenders. (But if it operates like the Probation department, it may produce a nice pool of jobs for some legislators to offer to campaign contributors.)