An Assemblymember from Los Angeles has introduced a legislative measure to soften the Three Strikes Law.

Assembly Bill 327 requires leniency in the third strike cases, specifically stating that the “defendant who has 2 or more prior violent or serious felony convictions shall receive the enhanced indeterminate life sentence only if the defendant's current conviction is for a serious or violent felony, as defined.”

This bill is based on the premise that a history of violent crime combined with a new felony conviction is not enough to justify a life sentence.

This bill is, accordingly, contrary to the purpose of the voter-approved Three Strikes Law which communicated that Californians are unwilling to tolerate any new felonies after a criminal has been convicted of two or more serious or violent crimes.

While the law is firm in establishing that Three Strikes are enough, it is not rigid in its application.

According to the California District Attorneys Association, “Despite the fears and protestation of opponents, the Three Strikes law has been used sparingly and allows for discretion at both the prosecutorial and judicial levels. The prosecution is permitted to request that the court dismiss a felony strike.”

This bill takes the wrong direction in the fight against crime. Three Strikes, like any law, is not perfect. But it has worked. Within five years of its adoption in 1994, violent crime in California dropped by half. The FBI reported that California, which had the fourth worst rate of crime in 1993, dropped to 29^th amongst states in 1999.

There is no good reason to change a law that keeps career criminals with a history of violent behavior locked away from society.