7 ‘Vargas 1 Stephanie Vargas Dr. Bruce English 301 7 November 2016 ‘One More Chance for Justice aN y On July 15, 1995 Curtis Wilkerson was anxiously waiting for his girlfriend inside a retail & store in Whittier, California until he was caught stealing a pair of white tube socks (Taibbi). He sons tate Yas sentenced to 25 years to life because this shoplifting charge worth $2.50 counted as his we a third strike (Taibbi). Now in a correctional facility in Soledad, California Curtis is remorseful \ < crime therefore he must be punished. However, “ ve should he be sentenced to 25 years to life for just © yd é $2.50 worth of socks just because he had two prior ag yw convictions? According to Taibbi, who was the recipient of the National Magazine Award in 2008, Tnttnes bain proposition 184 or California’s three strikes law was Lester Wallace is one of many | quickly and overwhelmingly approved by voters who offenders seeking a reduced sentence under prop.36. were traumatized after a violent felon named “Richard Allen Davis kidnapped and murdered an adolescent girl named Polly Klaas” in October 1993 inVargas 2 addition to other similar tragedies involving repeat felons. This initiative statute mandated a life sentence for any offender who was convicted ofa third crime with two prior serious felonies regardless of whether the third conviction was serious or violent (Taibbi). Proposition 36,which ‘was passed in 2012, revised California’s three strikes law by requiring third felonies to be serious or violent for life sentences, permits re-sentencing for eligible offenders currently serving life sentences based on the previous law, and continues to impose life sentences upon a third conviction under certain circumstances (Ballotpedia.org).| (stow opponents of prop. 36 argue _ “thot it undermines California’s original three strikes law effect as a deterrent, prop. 36 is more effective because it saves taxpayers’ money while keeping violent and serious recidivists in prison. :) “husis = Sentencing someone like Curtis, who was mentioned earlier, to life in prison on a petty offense is way too harsh ofa punishment. Michael Romano, the director of the Three Strikes Project at Stanford Law, advocated “A life sentence for petty theft or drug possession is excessive.” Romano further stated “He tried to steal a car radio. Should he be punished? Absolutely. Buta life term ... is fundamentally unfair... He's certainly served his punishment” when supporting an offender who is seeking to get his sentence reduced under prop.36. Prop. 36 corrected this disproportionate punishment through the serious and violent third felony clause thus prohibiting offenders to be thrown away in prison for a petty third conviction, Accordimz to Gaines and Miller, both who are professors, agree that one purpose of sentencing is rehabilitation or the idea that society benefits when criminals are given resources to change their criminal behavior (255). With this in mind offenders should get a chance to prove to society the effectiveness of these resources instead of being locked up for life. A law that was shaped afterVargas 3 the baseball rule of one, two, three strikes and you're out of the old ball game was not only extreme, but costly as well. Figures Growth in the Three Strikes Inmate Population in State Prison Prop.36 improves California's three strikes law because it saves taxpayers” money. Reports, as recent as 2008, show it costs California $47,000 annually to incarcerate an inmate in prison (Legislative of i Analyst's Office.ca.gov). Multiply this as oN = a number 6(43.00, ich is the number of Legislative Analyst's Office.ca.gov offenders who were sentenced under the California’s prisons population has grown astronomically with prop.184. original three strikes law as of December 31, 2004 (Legislative Analyst's Office.ca gov). The resulting number will only represent one year without taking into account the numerous years the inmates will have to serve. Surely there is a difference in the years between these statistics; however the point is to illustrate how much money the previous law is costing taxpayers. Prop.36 “authorizes re-sentencing for offenders currently serving life sentences if their third strike conviction was not serious or violent...” Gallotpedia org). As a result, one year after the Three Strikes Reform Act or prop. 36 was passed over 1,000 inmates have been released (NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund org). This means that within a year after the law went into effect between $10 and $13 million dollars has been saved (NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund org). The money that is being saved by releasing offenders, who were sentenced to life on petty offenses, can beVargas 4 redirected towards prison improvements like building more correctional facilities to reduce the severity of overpopulation or rehabilitation programs. ax®¥S7One concern opponents of prop. 36 have is that it weakens Califomia’s three strikes law he asa deterrent (Balloipedia.org). A deterrent in this context is a strict or harsh law written 60d uD GUM aN ass for the purpose of making people refrain from crime for fear of formal sanctions or consequences (Gaines and Miller, 254). Prop. 36 maintains strong deterrence because it still imposes life sentences for serious or violent felonies (Ballotpedia.org). In other words, offenders who have previous serious or violent felonies should still be afraid of getting a third and last serious or violent felony. In addition, it does not require a third conviction to be serious or violent if a prior conviction was murder, rape, o child molestation (Ballotpedia.org). Therefore, prop.36 is still a strong deterrent for offenders who had gP@ny of these convictions because their last felony does not have to be serious or violent. ww feturn to society. However, there are certain qualifications for resentencing that forbids violent and serious offenders from benefitting. According to California courts. gov, there are three excluded current felonies including: “specified controlled substances with high quantities, specified sex offenses, and use of firearm or weapon with intent to cause great bodily injury.” In other words, offenders who recently got convicted on any of these felonies will not be eligible for resentencing. In addition, there are seven different ways a defendant can be excluded because ofa prior crime including sexually violent offenses, specified homicide offenses, possession of ‘weapon of mass destruction, and assault with machine gun on police or fireman (California courts. gov). With these exclusions prop. 36 keeps violent and serious Seta In fact “56 percent were convicted of nonserious or nonviolent offenses” out of 42,810 inVargas 5 December 2004(Legislative Analyst's Office.ca. gov). This means more than half of strikers are convicted for petty offenses like Curtis, who was mentioned earlier. Offenders, who share similarities with Curtis's conviction, are the ones who are ao "°° going to benefit from prop.36 and be released rather than be a financial burden on. Legislative Analyst's Office.ca. gov ‘More than half of strikers are taxpayers. convicted for petty offenses. Certainly prop.184 or California’s three strikes law had reasonable intentions, but it needed reform to make it more effective. Prop. 36 revises California’s three strikes law by demanding third convictions to be serious or violent felonies unless under certain circumstances and authorizes re-sentencing for eligible offenders. Thus, prop.36 makes California’s three strikes law fair and it saves taxpayers money while still keeping serious and violent recidivists in prison, Prop. 36 allows offenders like Curtis to have one more chance for justice. e eo Sow ow? Aeron \ va em wo ond 2 cond te] fo be Gv Yrere CLET Ga Wine & SCAWS Cin wea vicloRt Celeng is, hyVargas 6 Works Cited. "A Primer: Three Strikes - The Impact After More Than a Decade." Legislative Analyst's Office.ca.gov. N.p., Oct. 2005. Web. Accessed 3 Nov. 2016. “California Proposition 36, Changes in the "Three Strikes" Law (2012).” Ballotpedia.org. N.p., n.d. Web. Accessed 13 Oct. 2016. "California Proposition 184, the Three Strikes Initiative (1994)." Ballotpedia.org. N.p., n.d. ‘Web. Accessed 13 Oct. 2016. “California’s Three Strikes Sentencing Law.” California Courts. www.courts.ca.gov/20142.htm. Accessed 13 October 2016. Gaines, Larry K., and Roger LeRoy Miller. Criminal Justice in Action The Core. 7th ed. N. ‘Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2014. Print. Gerber, Marisa. "Picking 'three-strikers' to Free Poses Complex Challenge." Los Angeles Times 16 Nov. 201616: n. pag. Latimes.com. 16 Nov. 2016. Web. 5 Nov. 2016. "How Much Does It Cost to Incarcerate an Inmate?” Legislative Analyst's Office.ca.gov.N.p., n.d. Web. Accessed 3 Nov. 2016. “Progress Report: Three Strikes Reform (Proposition 36) 1,000 Prisoners Released.” NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.org. Stanford Law School Three Strikes Project and NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Web. Accessed 13 Oct. 2016. Taibbi, Matt. "Cruel and Unusual Punishment: The Shame of Three Strikes Laws.” Rollingstone.com. N.p., 27 Mat. 2013. Web. Accessed 1 Nov. 2016.