Wednesday, October 31, 2012 | return to: views, opinions


Proposition 36: Revisions in the three strikes law — Law is working as intended, no fix required

by gary lieberstein

Follow j. on   and 

The three strikes law, enacted in 1994, is working exactly as the Legislature and the people of the state of California intended.

The stated intent of the initiative was to “ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted of serious and/or violent felony offenses.” Indeed, violent crime has declined by 17.6 percent and homicides by 30.9 percent from 2005 to 2010 alone. Overall, crime rates have steadily declined significantly since 1994.

Further, despite claims to the contrary, our prisons have not been overcrowded with third strikers. Out of a California prison population of 134,868, third-strikers serving life sentences comprise 8,873 individuals, or 6.6 percent of the total number of prisoners.

V_l_nameOf this population, 4,388, just under 3.5 percent, are serving life sentences where their third strike, or committing offense, was defined as “non-violent, non-serious.” Under Proposition 36, most of this population would be entitled to a resentencing hearing by a local judge leading to potential release with time served if not proven by the prosecution to still represent a danger to society.

This proposed initiative creates a “one size fits all” approach that takes all discretion away from prosecutors and judges where the current offense is considered “non-violent, non-serious,” despite the criminal history of the perpetrator, unless he/she has been convicted of murder, sexual assault, possession of a weapon of mass destruction or assaulting a police officer or fireman with a machine gun; in other words, pretty limited exceptions.

Under the initiative, someone who commits felony elder abuse or spousal abuse with a history of violent robberies, kidnapping, and/or residential burglaries would no longer be eligible for a life sentence. Further, someone with a similar past history currently serving life in prison would be eligible for a resentencing hearing.

This initiative is unnecessary due to the many safeguards already built into the law. In Napa County, as in many counties, the district attorney’s office does not pursue a life sentence under three strikes unless the district attorney, or senior members of his/her staff, have personally reviewed the case and agreed that such a sentence is warranted based on the individual’s past criminal history and current offense. If the local judge disagrees, he or she has the discretion to overrule our judgment and dismiss one or more priors so that it is no longer a life sentence. If they decline their discretion, appellate courts have the discretion to overrule both the DA and the judge.

The other major argument in favor of this initiative is it will save money if enacted. While financial considerations are important in our current budget times, they are not the only costs involved. Consider also the financial and personal cost of future crimes to victims and to law enforcement and the criminal justice system that could be prevented by keeping dangerous criminals in a place where they cannot harm us.

As a Jew, I believe in the concepts of forgiveness and atonement for one’s misdeeds. However, as a career elected prosecutor, I have the ultimate duty to protect my community from those who I believe have proven an inability to refrain from committing serious crimes. My late father encouraged me from a very young age to leave the world a better place than I found it. Protecting society from individuals who have committed multiple serious and violent felonies and who continue to harm our communities by their current actions is a core principal in accomplishing my father’s vision.

Proposition 36 is ill-conceived and unnecessary and I strongly urge you to vote no.

Gary Lieberstein
has been a prosecutor in Napa County since 1985 and the elected district attorney since 1998. Lieberstein is a past president of the California District Attorneys Association and currently serves as a vice president of the National District Attorneys Association.


Posted by Julie Lifshay
10/31/2012  at  05:37 PM
Actually, crime rates started declining

Actually, crime rates started declining in CA in 1993, before the 3 strikes law was passed. Dozens of studies have shown that CA’s decline in crime was not a result of the 3 strikes law. Crime has been going down all of the country since 1993, and in states without 3 strikes law more so than in states with a 3 strikes law. Los Angeles County, under the direction of DA Cooley, has been following the provisions of Prop 36 for a decade and they have seen their violent crime rates fall lower than the rest of the state as a result. If you think that someone who commits “felony elder abuse or spousal abuse” should get a life sentence, and maybe they should, then you should work to change the punishments for those crimes. However, sentencing someone to LIFE for stealing golf clubs or baby formula or being a look-out for a $20 drug sale is not justice. Indeed, it seems that Napa county has used some discretion as there are currently only 3 people from Napa county serving life sentences in state prison for non-violent, non-serious crimes. However, other counties, such as Kern, Kings, San Bernadino and Sacramento, to name a few, have not. Commit one crime in Napa and you may get 3 months. Commit the same crime in one of these other counties, and you get LIFE in prison. This is not a just system. Finally, the state corrections department (the CDCR) has determined these 2,800 or so people who, if Prop 36 passes would be eligible to go before a judge for him/her to determine whether they are a current danger to society, are among the LEAST likely to re-offend. Even less likely to re-offend than the 10,000 or so people the prison system current releases EVERY SINGLE MONTH.

There is no reason NOT to support Prop 36:
(1) 3 strikes has not resulted in lower crime rates in CA;
(2) Prop 36 has been tested for over a decade in Los Angeles County and has resulted in LOWER violent crime rates there than in the rest of the state;
(3)the DAs of Los Angeles, San Francisoc, and Santa Clara counties support and are advocates for Prop 36;
(4) it will save the state over $19 billion;
(5) It is not just to banish people to prison for LIFE for non-violent, non-serious crimes.

Vote YES on Prop 36. Visit the campaign at; facebook at Prop 36, and twitter @voteyeson36

Login to reply to this comment or post your own

Leave a Comment

In order to post a comment, you must first log in.
Are you looking for user registration? Or have you forgotten your password?

Auto-login on future visits