sweetmaxy
11-11-2004, 10:56 AM
Marjie Lundstrom: 'Three strikes' battle continues after demise of Prop. 66
By Marjie Lundstrom -- Bee Columnist
Published 2:15 am PST Thursday, November 11, 2004
Michael Vitiello is not, he says, a sore loser. Yes, Proposition 66 was rejected by California voters. Yes, the law professor was a big supporter who believes strongly that California's "three-strikes" sentencing law needs serious tweaking.
And yes, like almost everyone else, Vitiello pegged the proposition to win. Three weeks before the Nov. 2 election, the ballot measure to soften the 10-year-old three-strikes law led 65 percent to 18 percent in a Field Poll.
Then along came a last-minute infusion of cash for opponents, who also got a hand from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the measure went down, 53.2 percent to 46.8 percent.
But why, Vitiello asks, give up now when "reform is in the air?"
"This is the governor who promised to blow up the boxes," says Vitiello, a professor at the University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law. "He might be the governor to lead us to meaningful reform.
"It's going to take someone with real political capital and political courage to say, 'Enough is enough.'"
And so, despite the election's outcome, Vitiello and another prominent McGeorge professor, Clark Kelso - who also serves in the Schwarzenegger administration - are beginning to circulate an ambitious sentencing reform plan that goes beyond Proposition 66.
It is a curious twist in the three-strikes-and-beyond battle, giving the governor - who stomped all over Prop. 66 in late election ads - a proposal that would almost certainly lead to revision in the three-strikes law.
Titled "A Proposal for a Wholesale Reform of California's Sentencing Practicing and Policy," the 61-page paper has been delivered to the governor's office. It is going to legislators. It is posted on the Web site of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, which plans to publish the paper, written before the election.
And it is irking opponents of Proposition 66, who see this as an end-run around voters, who made their wishes clear Nov. 2.
"This is an in-your-face to the voters," said Jim Nielsen, a former state senator and parole board chairman who advocates for victims' rights. "The people just voted. And we don't want to change three strikes."
What the professors are pushing is the eventual establishment in California of a "sentencing commission," a panel that would set priorities on how to spend prison and parole dollars. Central to that, of course, is determining who gets the longest (and shortest) stays in the finite prison space.
Vitiello believes that California has been burdened by "drive-by" criminal sentencing, with the Legislature zipping in to pass sentencing enhancements in response to the latest crisis.
Other states, some less progressive than California, have already created sentencing commissions. It is a movement under study by the American Law Institute and one Vitiello says both liberals and conservatives can embrace.
Last year, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy told the American Bar Association that Americans spend too much money on prisons and that "our punishments (are) too severe and our sentences (are) too long."
California spends $6 billion a year on its prison system.
"We can't continue to buy our way out of the prison mess," says Vitiello. "... Our goal is not just to save money, but to use it wisely."
Vitiello and Kelso, who heads McGeorge's Capital Center for Government Law and Policy and is Schwarzenegger's chief information officer, tiptoe around an immediate call for a sentencing commission for California. Instead, they suggest that the state first adopt a "Blue Ribbon Commission to study wholesale reform of California's criminal sentencing scheme." But they make clear that a sentencing commission should be a central idea for consideration and point to successes elsewhere.
All this is frustrating to Nielsen, who complains that the sweeping proposal is "not a scholarly report. It's an advocacy piece." Nielsen doesn't rule out the idea of a sentencing commission but is suspicious of "who is promoting it," and whether they would ultimately work toward protecting public safety.
"I would hope the governor wouldn't embrace this widely right now," he said. "The people have spoken."
We have. But we can probably agree - however we voted on Proposition 66 - that California spends a fortune on crime and criminals. And we still don't feel secure.
Talk about time to blow up the boxes.
Reach Marjie Lundstrom at (916) 321-1055 or mlundstrom@sacbee.com. Back columns: www.sacbee.com/lundstrom.
By Marjie Lundstrom -- Bee Columnist
Published 2:15 am PST Thursday, November 11, 2004
Michael Vitiello is not, he says, a sore loser. Yes, Proposition 66 was rejected by California voters. Yes, the law professor was a big supporter who believes strongly that California's "three-strikes" sentencing law needs serious tweaking.
And yes, like almost everyone else, Vitiello pegged the proposition to win. Three weeks before the Nov. 2 election, the ballot measure to soften the 10-year-old three-strikes law led 65 percent to 18 percent in a Field Poll.
Then along came a last-minute infusion of cash for opponents, who also got a hand from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, and the measure went down, 53.2 percent to 46.8 percent.
But why, Vitiello asks, give up now when "reform is in the air?"
"This is the governor who promised to blow up the boxes," says Vitiello, a professor at the University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law. "He might be the governor to lead us to meaningful reform.
"It's going to take someone with real political capital and political courage to say, 'Enough is enough.'"
And so, despite the election's outcome, Vitiello and another prominent McGeorge professor, Clark Kelso - who also serves in the Schwarzenegger administration - are beginning to circulate an ambitious sentencing reform plan that goes beyond Proposition 66.
It is a curious twist in the three-strikes-and-beyond battle, giving the governor - who stomped all over Prop. 66 in late election ads - a proposal that would almost certainly lead to revision in the three-strikes law.
Titled "A Proposal for a Wholesale Reform of California's Sentencing Practicing and Policy," the 61-page paper has been delivered to the governor's office. It is going to legislators. It is posted on the Web site of Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, which plans to publish the paper, written before the election.
And it is irking opponents of Proposition 66, who see this as an end-run around voters, who made their wishes clear Nov. 2.
"This is an in-your-face to the voters," said Jim Nielsen, a former state senator and parole board chairman who advocates for victims' rights. "The people just voted. And we don't want to change three strikes."
What the professors are pushing is the eventual establishment in California of a "sentencing commission," a panel that would set priorities on how to spend prison and parole dollars. Central to that, of course, is determining who gets the longest (and shortest) stays in the finite prison space.
Vitiello believes that California has been burdened by "drive-by" criminal sentencing, with the Legislature zipping in to pass sentencing enhancements in response to the latest crisis.
Other states, some less progressive than California, have already created sentencing commissions. It is a movement under study by the American Law Institute and one Vitiello says both liberals and conservatives can embrace.
Last year, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy told the American Bar Association that Americans spend too much money on prisons and that "our punishments (are) too severe and our sentences (are) too long."
California spends $6 billion a year on its prison system.
"We can't continue to buy our way out of the prison mess," says Vitiello. "... Our goal is not just to save money, but to use it wisely."
Vitiello and Kelso, who heads McGeorge's Capital Center for Government Law and Policy and is Schwarzenegger's chief information officer, tiptoe around an immediate call for a sentencing commission for California. Instead, they suggest that the state first adopt a "Blue Ribbon Commission to study wholesale reform of California's criminal sentencing scheme." But they make clear that a sentencing commission should be a central idea for consideration and point to successes elsewhere.
All this is frustrating to Nielsen, who complains that the sweeping proposal is "not a scholarly report. It's an advocacy piece." Nielsen doesn't rule out the idea of a sentencing commission but is suspicious of "who is promoting it," and whether they would ultimately work toward protecting public safety.
"I would hope the governor wouldn't embrace this widely right now," he said. "The people have spoken."
We have. But we can probably agree - however we voted on Proposition 66 - that California spends a fortune on crime and criminals. And we still don't feel secure.
Talk about time to blow up the boxes.
Reach Marjie Lundstrom at (916) 321-1055 or mlundstrom@sacbee.com. Back columns: www.sacbee.com/lundstrom.