Righting the wrongs of "Three Strikes" life sentences

In California, for nearly 20 years now, a person convicted of breaking three laws -- no matter how minor -- would be sent to prison for life, no exceptions.

Some young people who saw injustice in the "Three-Strikes" law set out to change it.

At Stanford Law School, Michael Romano and his students don't just study justice, they go in search of it; seeking to free those, who, because of California's "Three Strikes" law, are serving life sentences for minor crimes.

Ashly Nikkole Davis is helping one inmate whose third strike was shoplifting a pair of gloves and a spool of wire from Home Depot, and another client who was arrested attempting to steal a car radio.

California passed its harsh "Three Strikes" law in 1994 after the high profile kidnapping and killing of 12-year-old Polly Klaas by a repeat offender. It was meant to keep serial murderers, rapists, and child molesters off the streets, but Stanford students saw a disturbing pattern.

"There's not just a handful of people who are sentenced to life. These aren't the exception. This is the rule. There are thousands of people who have been sentenced to life for non-violent crimes," said Michael Romano, director of the Stanford Three Strikes Project.

They discovered more than 4,000 such cases, according to former student Emily Galvin.

"At every level, there had been a prosecutor or a judge who thought it was okay to hand down a life sentence for shoplifting. (It) was really horrifying to me," Galvin said.

Armed with what they had learned about "Three Strikes," the Stanford students began a campaign for change. They gathered signatures, and wrote a ballot measure. In the November election, proposition 36, a major reform of the law, was passed by 70 percent of California voters.

"The people have spoken and the people no longer want to hand down these ridiculously harsh sentences for minor crimes," Galvin said.

With the change, "Three Strikes" inmates can now appeal to have their cases reviewed. The students are being repaid in gratitude by the prisoners they're helping.

One prisoner wrote: "I am very happy that proposition 36 has passed. To now being on the verge of having my life back is overwhelming. Thank you for your efforts in my favor, also, in treating me like a human being."

The Stanford students have now brought hope to inmates who believe they've already done enough time for a minor crime.

[Stringbeing]

Well,I tell ya... I'm glad to see the voices for law and order outshouting the calls to limit government by legislation.

Everybody knows the founding fathers were whack jobs...they actually outlawed double jeopardy in one of their amendments. They wanted a guy to get a sentence, do his time, and then not have that crime come back to him!
Silly unworkable idea...and we US citizens are right not to follow it, repeal it, or bother with it. We should just ignore the law. After all, some judge said it was OK...

And you'll have to excuse me a bit here... I'm getting on in years and it's harder to tell the difference between big government conservatives and police state liberals..

But we need to take pride in the fact that the US has the biggest prison system in the world... in raw numbers AND per capita..

And what with us being 16th in education, 12th in economic freedom and 22nd in justice in the world... at least we can look at these heathen nations around us and say "neener neener, we got bigger prisons than you"

Canada may have a higher standard of living that the US.. Iceland may beat us in education, health, and economic freedom... Frigging Portugal may have much more personal freedom...but NOBODY beats us for prisons... NOBODY.

[AttyFAM]

by Ulgnud December 30, 2012 10:30 PM EST
Did any of these people consider not doing the crime in the first place? Or is it someone else's fault they are in jail, as usual.
---------------------------------------

To Inspector Javert - I know that you do not understand the principle of "Let the punishment fit the crime", that all you want to do it strictly implement punishment without regard to the humanity of Jean Valjean or the circumstances of his crime - stealing a loaf of bread for his sister and her child. But you ignore the basic obligation to temper justice with mercy. No one should spend the rest of their life in prison over a pack of cigarettes or some such minor item. How can you think that such insignificant property rights are more important than human rights? Shame on you.

[AttyFAM]

Pray tell, MrPaulGeorge, exactly what punishment do you think fitting for theft of a $9 pack of cigarettes? Do you really think that three separate thefts of $9 each merits a life sentence? And in your case of 1,000 people each stealing a pack of cigarettes, would you punish them equally? Why is the minor crime worse if a lot of people do it?

Do you comprehend the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor? Do you understand that the law recognizes various degrees of theft based on the value of the property stolen, from a Class D misdemeanor to a Class A felony?

[AttyFAM]

by roblearns December 31, 2012 8:04 AM EST
@americalove1 - sorry friend, this isn't liberal vs. conservative.
I'm as conservative as you get, and I believe this is why you have a judge - to try a case.
------------------------------

The problem in California was that the law took away any discretion from the judge. It imposed a blanket policy that withdrew from the judges the power to sentence convicted persons based on the circumstances. Judges are not perfect, but they make fewer mistakes than legislatures that don't even look at facts.

[theshinyinternets]

Actually, judges still had a fair amount of discretion - and therein lies a whole different problem. See, a judge can decide whether or not to consider a defendant's prior strike in sentencing them, or sentencing them as if they have no prior strikes (for example, if the strike was nonviolent or a long time ago, most judges will set it aside). The trouble is, you have very different patterns in different courts. A "tough" judge may still decide to treat shoplifting as a strike, while another judge will set aside multiple non-violent burglaries when the defendant keeps committing them year after year. It's insane to be able to have totally different outcomes depending on where you are tried. Prop 36 still helps because it reins in the "discretion" of those judges that treat all felony crimes as equally serious.

[kevcl6750]

The original 3 strikes law was intended to count 3 violent crimes which would result in life without parole. How shoplifting got in there as a violent crime is ridiculous. I remember one case where someone got life without parole for stealing a pack of cigarettes.
Once in a while the voters in the land of fruits and nuts get it right. This is one of those times. Won't save them from the economic mess that is California but whatever.

[AttyFAM]

Do you mean, MrPaulGeorge, how many thefts of a $9 pack of cigarettes equals a murder in terms of punishment? I tell you that even an infinite amount of such thefts would not equal a murder in terms of a suitable punishment. The pack of cigarettes is only property. The murder takes away the most fundamental human right. There are crimes of property and crimes to the person. The former can never be more serious than the latter.

[kevcl6750]

The original 3 strikes law was intended to count 3 violent crimes which would result in life without parole. How shoplifting got in there as a violent crime is ridiculous. I remember one case where someone got life without parole for stealing a pack of cigarettes.
Once in a while the voters in the land of fruits and nuts get it right. This is one of those times. Won't save them from the economic mess that is California but whatever.

[collie61]

In some ways I agree with you. But, for career criminals there need to be progressive sentencing. First non violent offense, probation plus supervision. Second offense, maximum time for crime with parole consideration. Third offense, double maximum time without parole. A message needs to be sent to repeat non violent offenders. They do not contribute anything to society.

[themanfrombrum]

Well done on your brilliant research work. Now get to work on those who have been sentenced to Death Row yet really didn't commit the crime.

[Scimajor]

This story is completely misleading. There is not one single person who was given life in prison ONLY for shoplifting. Shoplifting might have been the last crime they committed but, again, NOT ONE SINGLE person is in jail simply for shoplifting.

"In California, for nearly 20 years now, a person convicted of breaking three laws -- no matter how minor -- would be sent to prison for life, no exceptions."

OMG. That is completely false. Good lord! Did this pass by the editor???? Look up the law people!!! It is NOT "no matter how minor". We're talking about felony offenses here. Not stealing a chocolate bar.

[americalove1]

I agree. We don't live in CA but the 3 strikes law was used for our brother. He's been in jail for 20 years now after purse snatching - his 3rd crime. He never committed a violent crime ever. He was sentenced to 45 years.

HOWEVER - he needed to go to jail. You're correct that this article is misleading. These crimes are often the result of serious drug abuse.

For our brother, it came because of crack. If he had not gone to jail, he would no doubt have ended up killing someone or been killed himself. It saved someone's life.

I understand he's been a model prisoner. Good. I'm gad he changed. I haven't seen or spoken to him in 20 years and don't plan on doing so.

He was trying to steal our mother's meds while she was dying of Cancer. He was in bad shape & needed to be put away.

All you liberal bleeding hearts can gripe all you want. You obviously haven't been a victim of someone on drugs.

[roblearns]

@americalove1 - sorry friend, this isn't liberal vs. conservative.

I'm as conservative as you get, and I believe this is why you have a judge - to try a case.

Did someone deserve to go away for life? Or did they not? And is the most ludicrously expensive option always the best one, or are there better one's?

You want to sentence someone to life for having a drug addiction - then why not make that a crime?
It's a slipperly slope indeed to sentence someone to life on the assumption they had a drug addiction, when in another case, a person had no drug addiction at all.

I knew a girl that shoplifted. She was an only child, and both of her parents were only children. Both of her parents died from when she was a teenager.

Left with no relatives - all her parents and grandparents dead, she ended up in foster care, where she received quite a bit of mistreatment.

As a young girl she was angry and poor, and found herself writing bad checks and shoplifting.

Life sentence for going through some hard times - what a piece of garbage you are, for suggesting that, just because your brother was on drugs.

[theshinyinternets]

Right?! Most outrageous lead in sentence ever. It's not "breaking three laws - no matter how minor", it's ONLY serious or violent felonies. And it's not "no exceptions", ever since the Romero decision in the late 90's, judges have been granted discretion to choose to set aside prior strikes and not consider them in the sentencing. They can do that if it was non-violent, a long time ago, or any other mitigating circumstances like mental health issues. CBS should be ashamed of this piece.

[DavidInMaine]

Thank goodness! This is the stupidest thing I ever heard of; life for shoplifting and the taxpayers on the hook for the expense of it all.

[Ulgnud]

Don't do the crime and you won't do the time. Pretty simple and efficient.

[Ulgnud]

Did any of these people consider not doing the crime in the first place? Or is it someone else's fault they are in jail, as usual.

[TheDocD]

If you think stealing a pai of gloves is worth a life sentence, you are the one who belongs in prison for life.

[Ulgnud]

The doc. If you don't do the crime you won't do the time. That should be simple enough for most people to figure out. Prison is not only for punishment but for the protection from some of these incorrigible s who simply will not behave. This legislation came as a result of useless judges who were not punishing the criminals for their crimes. The decision was taken out of their hands as a result. So now the cycle starts again.

[ReasonableHumanBeing]

Brilliant work !! You've changed the world !!