Prop. 184: Why Even Polly Klaas’ Father Says It’s a Big Mistake

Surely there’s no one in California who isn’t sick to death of violent crime and fed up with repeat offenders. Indeed, roiling frustration with out-of-control crime bubbled over last winter when the “three strikes and you’re out” law passed the Legislature on greased skids.

The law doubles prison terms for criminals convicted of a second felony if they have previously been convicted of a serious or violent felony. Criminals who commit a third felony--any one of the more than 500 listed in California law--face prison sentences of up to 25 years or life.

We strongly support longer prison terms targeted on repeat violent offenders, but we opposed AB 971, the legislation that established the “three-strikes” law. As the first wave of “three-strikes” defendants moves through the courts, our worries are being borne out. These early results of AB 971 are why we also oppose Proposition 184, on the Nov. 8 ballot.

The existing law indisputably does some good by locking up the state’s most violent repeat offenders, but because it casts such a broad net, scooping up nonviolent as well as violent criminals, it is also doing great economic harm to the state.

Proposition 184 simply repeats what was already approved in AB 971, thus it would do nothing to improve the law. It would not put one additional criminal behind bars nor would it incarcerate anyone for a day more. However, 184 would surely multiply the harm that AB 971 has already caused this once-prosperous state.

That’s why Marc Klaas opposed AB 971 and opposes Proposition 184. His daughter, Polly, was kidnaped from her bedroom last year and killed, allegedly by a man with a history of violent crime. It was her murder that pushed through AB 971, a measure that had been floating around Sacramento for some time.

Klaas lobbied in vain for a competing “three-strikes” bill that would have targeted repeat violent felons, such as the man charged with murdering his daughter. Now he wants to defeat 184 because he thinks it would cost too much and would make a bad law worse. He’s right.

1. Proposition 184 is unnecessary. The initiative clearly adds nothing new in the way of punishment. And legal experts say it is so poorly drafted that it may unintentionally dilute provisions in the existing law. The initiative’s “three-strikes” provisions may not apply to those with juvenile records or with felony convictions in other states.

2. Proposition 184 would make future refinements impossible. The major difference between the existing law and 184 is that it would take a two-thirds vote of both houses to amend 184. The Legislature can amend the existing law with a simple majority. Proposition 184 would make it all but impossible for state legislators to fine-tune the “three-strikes” law. That fine-tuning is already manifestly necessary.

3. Proposition 184 would lock California into a wrongheaded approach to crime control. No one condones petty theft, passing bad checks or possession of small quantities of illegal drugs. Those who commit such crimes should be punished. But the bulldozer approach of the current “three-strikes” law and 184 sweeps “third-strikers” convicted of these crimes into prison for the same terms as murderers and rapists.

Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Gil Garcetti has already been forced to file 9,000 “three-strikes” cases. The defendants include a Los Angeles man accused of stealing a slice of pizza. A Pomona man could be given 25 years in prison if convicted of stealing three steaks to feed his family. And a San Diego man who stole a can of beer could face a similar sentence.

4. Proposition 184 would force California to maintain an expanding prison system that is already well beyond the state’s ability to manage properly. California prison population is at 126,000 and is expected to hit 232,000 by the turn of the century. Prison officials project that the state will need 25 more prisons, above the present 28, at a cost of about $200 million each.

In a four-part series last week Times staff writers Dan Morain, Maria L. La Ganga and John Hurst brought into sharp relief the enormous costs and potential for abuse in the state’s ongoing prison construction program. That construction program has generated a maze-like bureaucracy with minimal legislative oversight. Prison construction and operation costs are sky-high and soaring even higher.

A decade ago, California allocated less than 3% of its general-fund budget to prisons; this year it will spend more than 7.5%. The annual prison payroll exceeds $2 billion. California spends more on prisoners’ physical and mental health care--$372 million--than 36 states spend on their entire prison budgets. Despite paying more in wages than almost any other state, the California Department of Corrections has trouble finding competent guards because the job is as dangerous as it is dull and many facilities are in sparsely populated parts of the state.

The probable effect of the coming bulge of “three-strikes” offenders is extremely worrisome. Full implementation of this law, if it occurs, would necessarily compete for already stressed resources that now go into critical state services. California already has a tough sentencing law on the books. Proposition 184 does nothing except lock us into sloppy, quick-fix “solutions” that don’t get at violent crime and may reduce our choices in education, health care and other crucial areas.