When California got tough on crime

The publication of “Cruel Justice” coincides with the 10-year anniversary of a major change in California penal law known popularly as “three strikes and you’re out.” The value of this law is as hotly debated today as it was a decade ago. Proponents of the three-strikes law argue that it has been responsible for a major decline in crime rates since the mid-1990s. Critics of the law find few statistics to back this claim. Further, they argue that three strikes produces manifest examples of injustice by forcing relatively minor offenders to serve sentences of 25 years to life, adding substantial costs to the state prison system.

Although the three-strikes law was not the only contributor, the California correctional population has grown tremendously since the law was enacted. In part to stem the seemingly uncontrollable growth in fiscal outlays for prisons, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has just appointed former Gov. George Deukmejian to head a special panel to review the penal system. When Deukmejian presided over California state government, there were about 30,000 inmates; today that number is closer to 160,000.

Since the 1980s, the state has built 21 prisons but not opened a single new University of California campus. State expenditures for corrections exceed $5 billion, which is greater than state spending for all public four-year colleges. Some would argue that we built a first-class prison system at the cost of having a third-rate educational system.

In “Cruel Justice,” Joe Domanick recounts a fascinating story about how Californians embraced the harshest criminal sentencing system of any state and describes the personalities and groups that contributed to this result. He has not tried to write an analytic study -- indeed, the book is somewhat thin on some crucial facts about crime trends and sentencing patterns. The book focuses on the moral crusade led by Mike Reynolds, a small businessman from Fresno, whose daughter was killed during a street crime. We also learn of the family tragedy experienced by Marc and Joe Klaas when Polly, their young daughter and granddaughter, respectively, was brutally murdered. Though Reynolds quickly led a campaign to enact three strikes, the Klaas family came to question whether they were being exploited by more conservative political groups to garner support for a law only marginally related to the killing of their child.

Domanick does a good job detailing the roles of special interest groups such as the National Rifle Assn., the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. and the Republican Party (especially the unsuccessful Senate candidate, Michael Huffington) in pushing for the new “get tough” law. He also provides an excellent profile of USC law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, who argued against three-strikes sentencing before the U.S. Supreme Court. However, Domanick does a less than satisfactory job in talking about other key opponents of the law, whom he summarily labels Bay Area liberals. Nor does he provide many details on the motivations and decisions of leaders of the state Democratic Party to ultimately embrace that law as if it were their own.

“Cruel Justice” is most compelling when it tells the stories of the criminals who are swept up in the law’s overreach. Domanick helps us understand the human toll on individuals (and their families) of long prison terms. He selects two people whose lives have not been exemplary but who were drawn to tragic situations by their addictions to drugs and alcohol. The fair-minded reader should develop some compassion for the suffering of these people, who will spend most of their lives in prison because of the three-strikes law.

Domanick offers a general theory of the motivations of the law’s supporters, painting a portrait of rural and small-town Californians enraged by a decline in civility supposedly brought about by the migration of people of color to California. He avoids an accusation of racism by pointing to their hostile attitudes toward poor whites as well, cast as a modern-day version of the Okies. These angry middle-class white men embrace a hard-edged approach to law enforcement and punishment. Though this analysis might somewhat fit the attitudes of some Californians, it fails to explain why three strikes and other draconian sentencing bills are usually supported by the vast majority of Californians. How can it be that the Golden State, one of the staunchest supporters of the Democratic party, would cling to the right wing of criminal justice philosophies?

“Cruel Justice” provides a snapshot of the rise of “get tough” crime policies that started with the passage of the determinate sentencing law during Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration and advanced through thousands of bills that enhance penalties. Only a few years ago, with the overwhelming passage of Proposition 21 -- the nation’s toughest sentencing bill for juvenile offenders -- the electorate showed that its appetite for harsh penalties was not sated. Besides harsher laws, the state has enacted parole policies that have produced a high rate of recidivism: The majority of prisoners are re-incarcerated within a few months of their release, often for violations of the terms of their parole, not for new crimes. Prison costs have skyrocketed, and the new governor is seeking creative ways to reduce the inmate population.

The changes in the law do not tell the entire story of punishment in California. Recent revelations of horrid conditions for young people housed in a Youth Authority facility and the ongoing scandals of abusive practices in state prisons suggest that there are other meanings for the term “cruel justice.” The state spends a healthy share of taxpayer funds defending itself against civil rights actions brought by federal agencies or through the judiciary. Several legislative studies and the work of the Little Hoover Commission have indicated how dysfunctional the penal system has become. The new governor will need to be a real superhero to tackle a corrections system that is so out of balance.

Unfortunately, “Cruel Justice” offers few compelling suggestions for reform. Domanick expresses some hope that new state drug policies will go the way of local drug courts and the enactment of Proposition 36 (which mandates treatment rather than prison for minor drug offenders). But these measures by themselves will not have a major effect on reducing the state prison population. Domanick correctly labels three strikes as a ticking time bomb, in the sense that ever more offenders become eligible for its lengthy sentences. Although we can find a little solace in the fact that some district attorneys are using the law more sparingly, this situation could change with each electoral cycle, or with the next media-hyped crime. Ultimately, Californians must face up to the harm done to all of us by three strikes and amend the law to focus primarily on repeat violent offenders. “In our zeal to punish offenders, we should be careful not to punish ourselves,” my mentor Milton Rector, former president of the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, used to say. This sage advice should guide California penal policy and practice today. *