Judges Allowed Discretion in ‘3 Strikes’ Cases

Re “Justices Deal Blow to ‘3 Strikes,’ ” June 21:

Look at the effect weakening the “three-strikes” law will now have on just the one individual whose appeal led to the recent decision. Jesus Romero, with 24 previous criminal convictions in the previous 16 years, was found guilty of possession of cocaine (which supposedly led to his previous criminal acts), and would have been sentenced to 25 years to life. Now he is sentenced to just six years, and according to the article, “could be released within a year.”

The “three-strikes” law had its flaws, but at least the public was trying to correct an obviously flawed justice system the best it could.

STEVEN COKER

Los Angeles

* The “three-strikes” law sent a simple message to criminals: If you have two felony convictions, change your lifestyle. Don’t steal--anything. Don’t do drugs--any kind, any amount. Don’t commit another crime--any crime. If you choose to commit a felony, your sentence is 25 years to life.

Some criminals didn’t get the message. None of the California Supreme Court justices got it.

CLAUDETTE SCHROEDER

Seal Beach

* Your editorial of June 21, “A Return of Judgment to the Judging Process” was a badly needed review of the negative impact the “three-strikes” law has had on the California legal system and the state budget.

Once again the tragedy of unintended consequences was a companion of the initiative process. We should know by now that yes or no votes by the voting public on complex issues do not work and that the majority vote proves nothing but the effectiveness of negative ads in an election.

DOROTHY K. JOHN

Oxnard

* Bravo to the justices for their decision invalidating “three strikes” and in the process demonstrating the independence from ideology of appointing governors which is fundamental to an unbiased judiciary. Perhaps now the media will cease evaluating new and prospective judicial appointees primarily in terms of “liberal” or “conservative.” Judicial craft, not political agenda, is what makes the process work.

ROBERT S. THOMPSON

La Jolla

* The minute anyone--judge, president, congressperson--makes an effort that seems reasonable, the righteous fringes work themselves up into a lather, scheming to undo it with the scariest rhetoric. Only this time, they intend to shamelessly circumvent the ruling of their own conservative California justices (June 22).

The justices ruled that judges must use coolheaded reason and logic founded upon the law and on their own evaluation of an individual situation, to pronounce sentence. Right-wingers feel they’ve already pronounced sentence directly from their voting booth! Apparently, we could do away with the courtroom altogether.

TOBI DRAGERT

Tarzana

* Gregory Totten (Commentary, June 24) misses the point. His piece on “three strikes” is a hysterical smoke screen designed to scare people into granting prosecution undue power and influence.

Over 60% of all prisoners in the U.S. should not be in jail in the first place! They are in for simple drug possession or prostitution, which the state has no compelling reason to prohibit. These activities should be legal and regulated. They should not be treated as criminal justice problems at all, but as social/health concerns.

Fix “three strikes” to apply only to violent convictions and it might earn a measure of my support.

JOHN D. BALTIC

Topanga