This is ONE OF 3 responses to VC 30 Roger 1 ("Crime ")...
Three strikes and you're out seems to be one of the biggest political issue around California. Gov Wilson is jumping aboard the bandwagon and cautious voices seem to be only barely heard.
I go along with the idea that there are some people who are violent and little can be done for them if they don't continuously cooperate. For this type of person, I'm solidly for the concept of three strikes.
However there are some things about the "Three Strikes" initiative that I don't like.
The first thing is the idea that you can't trust the legislature so this has to be a constitutional amendment that cannot be changed without a 2/3 vote. I don't agree that the legislature can't be trusted and for that reason I would be against the initiative - especially if the legislature comes out and passes a three strikes law.
The second thing I don't like about it is that the third strike doesn't need to be violent. They do have an exception allowable in the initiative that if the both the judge and the prosecutor agree and it is a specific type of non-violent crime, then an exception can be made. This exception is essentially useless.
The third thing is that no attempt is made to address the causes of crime - it's just a throw them in jail and get rid of them type of initiative. In addition, no attempt is made to address where the money will come from for any of this.
I think this is another attempt of a vigalante type of mob control of the law and it should be defeated. What do you think?