Three strikes law not working

jimpeel

New member
http://www.examiner.com/news/default.jsp?story=n.threestrikes.0823w

3-strikes law not working
By Dan Evans
Of The Examiner Staff

Two-thirds of all lifers convicted under California's "three strikes" law are nonviolent felons, calling into question whether the controversial law is reducing violent crime as intended.

A study that analyzed the effectiveness of the 1994 law found it sorely lacking, according to a report released today by The Sentencing Project, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.

The law requires a mandatory sentence of 25-years-to-life imprisonment for people convicted of a third violent felony, There are 500 varieties of felonies, ranging from drug possession to simple theft.

District Attorney Terence Hallinan never was a fan of the three-strikes law, vowing not to seek the penalty for those who commit a nonviolent third crime. Spokesman Fred Gardner said Hallinan was prepared to bend that self-imposed rule for Charles Rothenberg, who was charged in June with arson, fraud and weapons possession. Rothenberg, 61, is infamous for setting his then 6-year-old son on fire in 1983. His son survived, but is terribly disfigured.

Even if the office had not been able to go forward with the arson charge, which is a violent felony, Gardner said, the DA would have filed for the maximum penalty against Rothenberg.

Officer Jim Deignan, a Police Department spokesman, said he hadn't seen the report and couldn't comment on its accuracy. Still, he finds it hard to believe that tougher sentencing hasn't contributed to recent crime-rate reductions.

"I think crime is down because they're sentencing more bad guys to time," he said.

The report by The Sentencing Project says the controversial law is creating a class of older and therefore more costly prisoners, all without reducing violent crime. Twenty-two percent of arrests in the state are of offenders above age 39, and only 5 percent are over 50, the report said.

Despite these arrest ratios, the study projects that by 2026, 30,000 offenders will be imprisoned for a third-strike, with 83 percent of them at least 40 years old.

Marc Mauer, assistant director of The Sentencing Project, said the state's three-strikes law is overburdening California's prisons. Since most of the offenders put away for good are not violent, he said, the law does not reduce violent crime.

Giving the following examples, Mauer said the sentencing disparities are hard to miss:

-- Scott Benscoter had two prior felony convictions for burglary when he was sentenced to 25-years-to-life for stealing a pair of sneakers;

-- Gregory Taylor, who was homeless, was sentenced to 25-years-to-life for breaking into a church pantry for food;

-- Geralyn Busnardo was sentenced to 25-years-to-life for crack possession, even though her last conviction for a violent offense was in the 1960s.

California, similar to other states, experienced a marked decrease in crimes between 1993 and 1999. But the study claims the 41 percent drop in that period was attributable to many factors -- an improved economy, declines in gang and drug activity, community policing and the aging of people most likely to commit crimes.

The study states there is no relationship between the crime drop and California's tougher sentencing guidelines. In fact, other jurisdictions without similar laws have had similar crime reductions over the same period. New York saw crime fall 40.9 percent, while Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., and New Jersey each saw their crime rates fall about 30 percent.

E-mail Dan Evans at devans@sfexaminer.com
 
Peg Lugsik(sp?), a candidate for PA governor in '94, tickled me when she responded to a "three strikes" question by asking "When your child misbehaves, do you threaten to punish them if they do it twice more?"

"Three strikes" laws should apply only to non-violent criminals. The idea of punishing violent criminals for their first offense should have never gone out of style.

Tom
 
District Attorney Terrence Hallinan has leftest roots. He ran for DA only because term limits would have made him a politician without an office. Before being elected, he was one of the three persons responsible for huge sexual harassment claims against the City.

Goes to prove that San Franciscans are a stupid breed. How they can vote for him the first time escapes me. They then reelected him for a second term of office.
 
I agree. Whatever happened to "one strike, you're out" ?

As far as San Fransiscans go, just remember the Liberal Socialists are everywhere ... EVERYWHERE! Herr Klinton get elected twice.
 
One thing to keep in mind is that three strikes means that violent criminals with "two strikes" are considerably more likely to use violence in ensuring that they are not apprehended - which has in the past included execution of witnesses.
 
What do you expect from a stupid law based on a pop culture phrase and based on no real scientific evidence. Our "correctional" system has nothing to do with correction. It's all about just containing people, which unfortunately makes them animals. We have a choice in this nation if we want things to improve. We either a) kill them, b) lock them up for good, or c) correct them. Some people cannot ever be corrected, and for those few, a and b are the unfortunate, but necessary routes, but what about the others? One thing I think people overlook is that gangs are sometimes made up of the best and brightest in a community. Does that concept shock you? Lets look at the facts. They are proactive members of their community, they come up with their own organizational structures, and their own codes of ethics. They start their own businesses, they employ those around them, and they often fanatically protect their own. All these things would be GREAT traits if those efforts weren't directed at criminality. This is what they need to be taught. We need a prison system that takes these people and teaches them that all the things they are doing right now are no different in principal than legal and acceptable things, and that there is no reason they cannot go out and excell at those legal things. Of course, we don't teach them that, Big Brother beats them up and locks them in their room for a long long time and never really explains why.
 
Well I'll be the oddball here. The reason I can see a three strikes system working better than a one strikes system is...How would you like to be sent to prison for 25 years to life mandatory because an ignorant district attorney and jury got you convicted of murder for shooting someone in defense? A conviction is a conviction, but making the harshness hit on the third try removes the doubt of if the punishment is really deserved. A good example is Albuquerque, NM. You can lose the car you are driving on your third DUI. Why not the first? How would you like to be charged with DUI just because a crooked officer thought your corvette would make a nice unmarked squad? If you are on your third though, you probably deserved to be dealt with in a harsh manner.

NOTE: My references to a corrput system do not imply that all police officers, DA's, or juries are corrupt or anything but honest. It just explains that a few bad apples may be in the bushel.
 
This email just in, regarding this 5 year old thread:
To Whom It May Concern,

On your website on the thread titled, "3-strikes law
not working," By Dan Evans Of The Examiner Staff, it
is written that "Geralyn Busnardo was sentenced to
25-years-to-life for crack possession, even though her
last conviction for a violent offense was in the
1960s."

I am Geralyn Busnardo, and I am a licensed to practice
law in the State of California. Kindly verify this
information with the State Bar of California at
www.calbar.org. I have never been convicted of any
crime, petty or felony, and I am not serving a
25-year-to-life sentence for crack possession.

Please remove this slanderous article from your
website within 48 hours. Be assured that I will
contact the author of the article and request the
same.

Thank you for you immediate attention to this matter.

Best regards,
Geralyn Busnardo

As it is mentioned here as a quote from a newspaper (The Examiner), with complete reference given to author and publication, I hardly believe TFL or the poster are liable. If Ms. Busnardo has a complaint, it should be taken up with the newspaper columnist.

For the record, I have no doubt that this email is authentic and truthful. However, I would be little surprised to find there were more than one Geralyn Busnardo in the US. Who/Where lists 3 in CA and 2 in CO.
Rich
 
She's the real deal Rich.

It also appears that she played a major role in the "three strikes" controversy.

Geralyn Busnardo, Esq.

Public Defender in Criminal Courts Building/Los Angeles


Speaking before Public Safety Committee in Sacramento
in favor of Amending the 3-Strikes Law – April 2000





Good morning, my name is Geralyn Busnardo and I am an attorney with the Public Defenders Office in Los Angeles County and I came here not as representative of my office, or as a representative of the Public Defenders Association, but as a member of an Organization called Families to Amend California Third Strikes Law. And there are a number of those people in the audience . . . their outburst is because of their frustration, they have sons, husbands, brothers, who are serving 25 years to life sentences and -- members of the Committee make no mistake, they’ve been made very clear -- that these people will never get out of prison. These are essentially life sentences. Every governor in the last twenty years has refused to release anyone who is serving an indeterminate sentence such as 25 years to life. These people are going to be spending the rest of their lives in prison.



Some of the discussion here has been in abstract, but for those of us who are in the trenches everyday, its not an abstract. --It takes away our ability to work on more difficult cases, we are tying up the system with clients and cases that we tried as lawyers, that go to trial for petty thefts. One of the more egregious ones being that our hands are tied, you can’t put these people in Drug Court when they are drug addicts and their record reflects that they are drug addicts. We can only do one thing and that is to go to trial, take up a court, take up the judge’s time, take up the District Attorney’s time, take up my time.



Thousands of dollars are being spent just trying these cases. The State is willing to spend $25,000 a year to house these people in the State Prison, but they are not even willing to spend $5,000 a year to help them with their drug addiction. Many of the people who have chronic theft throughout their history have also been drug addicts and thats why they steal.



I came here last year with a client of mine who was facing 25 years to life. His offense was possession of approximately 3.10 of a gram of crack cocaine. (Emphasis by Capt Charlie) His prior conviction had been from 1968 in a single incident. He had essentially, between 1968 and 1988 had been out of prison for his original offense and then some subsequent drug offenses. From 1988 until the present, he had remained arrest free, drug free, conviction free. He got picked up on this case, and at the discretion of the District Attorney’s office, they were willing to offer this 58 year old man 32 months in State Prison for 3.10 of a gram of cocaine. And if he didn’t have his strikes, he would have been given probation, he would have been placed in a drug program.



When we send somebody to prison for 25 years to life for a petty theft, we have placed human life below the value of property, and that essentially means we have lost our humanity.

http://www.facts1.com/040400/0129291.htm

It actually appears that she may have been the defense attorney for the person in Evans' article, and somehow her name was substituted for that of her client.

In any event, it was clearly Evans' screw-up and not ours, although I have to wonder why, after five years, Ms. Busnardo is suddenly bringing this to your attention here at TFL.
 
Two-thirds of all lifers convicted under California's "three strikes" law are nonviolent felons

The law requires a mandatory sentence of 25-years-to-life imprisonment for people convicted of a third violent felony

Huh?? This article seems to contradict itself within two sentences. How can you be convicted of a "violent" felony and be a "nonviolent" felon?
 
The so-called War on Drugs is a farce. Violent sociopaths are released into society to make room for non-violent drug offenders. The excuse for drug laws is to save the dopers from dying as a result of their own proclivities. I say dispense heroin from dump trucks with shovels. The junkies will all be gone within 2 weeks and the rest of us won't be the recipients of SWAT raids at the wrong house. If a junkie or crack head needs a fix let him/her get it as cheaply as possible so they don't have to steal my guns/TV/etc. to get it. The whole purpose of the War on Drugs is to create the pretext by which the drooling masses can be persuaded to give up their rights for a supposedly noble cause, to create busy work for the legal industry, and create the legal precedents by which the Bill of Rights is reduced to a collection of meaningless legal fictions. Violent criminals should be eliminated with numerous sucking chest wounds by their first intended victims and addicts should be allowed to expire when they OD. Of course, this means that lawyers and other societal parasites will have to find productive employment, so it will never happen.
 
HOLD THE HORSES. First the article is very old. Terry Hallinan
is out of office.
You actually believe an article, written in the liberal center of the planet?
Three strikes does work, but, not for what the writer would like. 3 strikes has considerably reduced robbery, home invaision, and, home robberies. Why? They count as strikes, and commercial theft doesn't.
So, yes, it works, just not for what the strawman the writer setup for.
Yes, we get horror stories in law all the time. Most of law is made from some absurd, emotional, far out crime, like the examples listed, but, I wonder if they are true examples, or stuff made up? Also, having worked in the prosecutors office, in SF, it's highly unlikely charges would have been filed on any of the three strikes cases listed, and, it's highly unlikely, with the 48% conviction rate in SF, that any of them would have been convicted. Regardless of the
examples given, third strike filings usually required a huge rap sheet, most guys in the 20 page arena, at least in SFDA's office. Other DA's, like one in Martinez, file and ask for max sentence, trying to build a rep, so, we do have problems with the laws in general, when such guys are given power. That's not the laws fault. It just shows that no matter what the law, if it's preverted by an officer, a DA, a judge, etc. the system fails.

"California, similar to other states, experienced a marked decrease in crimes between 1993 and 1999. But the study claims the 41 percent drop in that period was attributable to many factors -- an improved economy, declines in gang and drug activity, community policing and the aging of people most likely to commit crimes.

The study states there is no relationship between the crime drop and California's tougher sentencing guidelines. In fact, other jurisdictions without similar laws have had similar crime reductions over the same period. New York saw crime fall 40.9 percent, while Massachusetts, Washington, D.C., and New Jersey each saw their crime rates fall about 30 percent."

So, we have an 'expert', a rag writer, writing for the all time rags, Chronicle or Examiner, try to inflame, and sell papers. And, "The study" should be given the credit it deserves, considering it's source, Washington D.C.
The conclusion to this article is at best, faulty.

What is a crime? Does the criminal have to be caught, tried, and convicted?

We have 'less crime' in one sense. Illegal aliens are given a free reign to commit crimes in Kali. Come over, steal, get caught, and, you are in jail for 3 days, due to the local courts having no jurisdiction over illegal aliens.
You are then released, unless the INS has come over, and moved you into our crowded federal court building system. Knowing some of the judges over there, I suspect the Attorney's for the state are unlikely to even file for a burglary, car theft, etc. due to the possibility of incuring the judges wrath, in Federal court.
Likewise, if you try and fight a speeding ticket in federal court, for speeding in Ocean Beach area, a Federal park, the judges make sure you never make that mistake again.

For a case to move into Federal court, it has to involve a gun, robbery, attempted murder, or massive drugs.

So, if you are illegal, feel free to steal, and get released.

The article says crime is down, and gang activity is down.
REALLY?
So that's why law enforcement had a massive meeting in San Diego, in 2000, to discuss the completely out of control gang and drug problem in the Western United States, and, trying to figure out some way to combine agency cooperation to combat a situation where the police are out manned, and out gunned?

I really wonder about the posters intentions here. The article was posted without a date, which would have alerted many to it's lack of validity. Not much has been
researched, or considered as to the source that did the report, nor the person reviewing it, Dan Evans.

Does he even work for the Examiner anymore?

S
 
Back
Top