Wednesday, November 21, 200
BATTALION
Page 9
hree crimes, and you're
Law inadvertently punishes
I
[hree-strikes law is necessary
o
J warehouse'
Hey
e next monu
[acted by pofel
Policedidn’lalw n e, two, three strikes you’re out at the ol’ ball game 1
1 come to &Jp i In?ay be the rules in most places, but California has
5 the familjt m recently changed its game, allowing prisoners to
the girl b) Mm their freedom. Since 1994, California has been enforcing
s about a tlmq ' three strikes'' policy, which mandated heavy prison sentences
on her hm Urepeat offenders. The law was clear and simple — crinii-
was fourmo jjals received automatic imprisonment after three felony
convictions. It allows for one-time
mishaps, it allows for two-time mishaps,
but then you go to jail. Unfortunately, the
courts have decided that criminals deserve
more than three chances.
Frequently, people tight against laws
that are unfair or misunderstood by the
residents they affect. The three strikes
law is as simple as its name — there should
be no confusion about the rules or the
hing a heaiei.
Jacquez,
it Lorenzo
School, sa
was a canij
ed to everyth!
jsh another
ir.
7 El Paso la'
cers said the
nber the last pctions that must be taken to abide by them. This is not
hi Id was ahditMiLe a baseball game. When a batter stands at home plate,
a stranger, tie should focus on the game, but also be able to feel
Rxed. But as his count reaches two strikes, he has lost his
Bit to relax and must realize that he will be out if one
Bre strike passes him. A 5 year-old little leaguer can real-
) the Lyndon must concentrate seriously on not acquiring
seum, which»(hij-j strike if he wants to continue playing — it
pers andmeir*j m p]y t 00 b a( j if an adult cannot realize that,
idem. BNot only is overturning this law ridiculously
libraries are »piyj n g that “crime is OK,” but the specific
r believes thcBnple is almost good enough for a
le IT fromfuBgh. Recently, the U.S. Court of
Ipeals ruled by a vote of two to
connections ixi that the 50-year sentence of
o, with BushsBndro Andrade for shoplifting
of town: SoiMinconstitutional. That sentence
i Dallas, whid
and where the;
y of Midland.i
is business i|
> before h
guration: i
ue Station,
[ne may seem to make sense,
his story speaks well beyond
[lere shoplifting scheme,
ondro Andrade was caught
ith petty shoplifting, such as
jaling $154 worth of video tapes
ima K-Mart store. But his shoplift-
ig schemes were not for mere satisfac-
jghter Jew attel
is a gratajf
student. *
idergiaduate
nd his Mi
e for
money {iff foK®
itional
lid Susan Coopeh
tional Archives
which
:ial libraries,
9 Week&ndltb 1 I game wiJJ continue until it is understood that if three strikes do
irting at!
g Events • Pi
Junions • Me
r 9-731-8155
e-veranda,c;
equal an out, the home team will never win.
out
crimes
Tms is not unlike a baseball game. When a
batter stands at home plate, they should
focus on the game, but also be able to feel
relaxed. But as his or her count reaches two
trikes he has lost his right to relax and must
realize that he will be out if one
more strike passes him.
[n, nor were they because Leondro really liked video tapes,
tead those tapes gave him money to support his heroin addic-
n. Finally, this was his third strike since the law’s enactment, but
vas his fifth noted offense. It no longer seems that Leondro was
dected by the constitution. It could very well be that 50 years in jail is
best thing for him.
The three strikes law was one of the very few black and white rules that
sted. Sadly, the appeals court has allowed there to be a gray area, and as
oners across California realize, they may have the potential to reduce
I ir sentences the same way Leondro did. The gray-area gates are going to
nand California courts will be flooded with appeals,
n six months, Leondro and many like him will return to their days of
plifting at K-mart and return to their drug-using lives. California’s
Melissa Bedsole is a senior
psychology major.
RUBEN DELUNA * THE BATTALION
n baseball, a player has three chances to get a hit. If not, he strikes out. Unlike baseball, in
life the consequences are more than a disappointed crowd. The difference is that a criminal
will strike out in the game of life and will be sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Although this analogy is strange, it is conducive to the “three-strikes” law
under which California has been operating for the past seven years.
Instead of attacking the root of crime, such as poverty, educa
tion, and drug addiction, this law, with its catchy moniker and
tough-guy appeal, is a misdiagnosis of
the cause and solution to crime.
California’s “three-strikes”
law, passed in 1994, is a habitu
al-offender law intended to deter
violent crime offenders by
harshly punishing them on their con
viction. The law states that if a person has
committed one previous violent or serious
felony, upon committing a second violent or
serious felony, he or she will be sentenced to twice the prison
term prescribed. If a person has been convicted for two previous
violent or serious felonies and is convicted of a third felony of
any kind, the punishment is 25 years to life in prison.
This law offers Americans a feeling of comfort and safety by prom
ising to crack down on repeat violent offenders, but more often than
not this law captures offenders of minor offenses. In fact, according
to Families to Amend California’s Three-Strikes (FACTS), 65 per
cent of people convicted of three strikes are for drug-related
offenses. In these cases, the sentencing is grossly out of propor
tion to the crime committed. Recently, the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals overruled a California court three-strikes
ruling, claiming that it applied cruel and unusual punish
ment. In this particular case, because the plaintiff, Andrade
Leandro, had been convicted of several prior offenses, all
non-violent, the three-strikes law raised his two counts of
petty theft for shoplifting nine videotapes from K-mart
stores to a felony. As a result, Leandro was sentenced to
life in prison with no possibility of parole for 50 years.
In this case it is clear to see the problBB that surround a
law that results in dramatic injustice.
This law offers Americans a feeling of
comfort and safety by promising to crack
down on repeat offenders, but more
often than not this law captures
offenders of minor offenses.
Economically speaking, California’s three-strikes law
is not efficient, either. California spends about $5.7 billion
on its prisons and jails. Ironically, California spends more
on corrections than on higher education.
This law does very little to deter crime.
Most violent crimes are not premeditated and occur in
a state of anger or under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
Therefore, the prospect of a life sentence is not going to
stop people from acting impulsively. Instead, it may actu
ally spur violent acts since a criminal will be more likely
to resist arrest, kill a witness or attempt a prison escape
when facing a life sentence.
To make matters worse, the “three-strikes” law leaves no
room for first-or-second time offenders to start over with a
clean state. No matter how many years have passed since a previous
offense, a third offense, violent or not, will be enough to send a person to
prison for life. This can leave the family and community of minor three-
strike offenders embittered at and more likely to resort to crime. In the end,
a vicious cycle of events has occurred and are continually being reinforced.
Meanwhile, our prisons are becoming full of older criminals, who are unlikely to
resume a life of crime if released, and younger serious offenders are being paroled.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union, more than 40 percent of inmates are
illiterate and one-third were unemplpyed when arrested. By looking at crime-reduction poli
cies, you would think that it takes a prodigy to discern the relationship between despair and crime.
Programs aimed at prevention, rehabilitation and education should be implemented, or at least tried.
Until crime is attacked at the root, Americans will undoubtedly be plagued by violence and injustice.
Jennifer Lozano is a junior
English major.
Truly politically incorrect?
n Sept. 17, Bill Maher committed
an unthinkable act — he criticized
the government.
The host of the late night talk show
blitically Incorrect” accused the U.S.
JQQjglljS lemment of being cowardly. Maher said,
“We have been the cow
ards, lobbing cruise mis
siles from 2,000 miles
away. That’s cowardly.
Staying in the airplane
when it hits the building,
say what you want about
it, it’s not cowardly.”
As one can imagine,
the American public was
:nanOi
0 FACE
n uproar over these seemingly unpatri-
comments. Affiliate television stations
|pped the show and sponsors like FedEx
. and Sears pulled their money and
Service B lt ^ ie y were not coming back. It seemed
' BABC would drop the show from its
lity benight lineup. Yet, in a major milestone
for freedom of speech, the show and its
ounseli!:- 0siare still part of ABC _
BWhile the statements may anger many,
her has a right to say them. Freedom of
ech is the hardest to uphold when peo-
say what no one wants to hear. Maher’s
w is called “Politically Incorrect” for a
on. One would not expect to hear
mainstream opinions on the show. It is an
accepted fact that Maher is not mainstream
America and his previous statements have
angered many. But this new backlash is *
more disturbing then those before because
it was so widespread. With the attacks of
Sept. 1 1, most Americans are experiencing
an increased amount of publicly-displayed
patriotism and are watching the news
more. With these two actions the public
Freedom of speech is hardest to
uphold when people say
what no one wants to hear.
has an increased awareness of current
events and a decreased amount of toler
ance for dissenting opinions.
Even White House Press Secretary Ari
Fleischer propagated this idea of decreased
tolerance. In a White House briefing,
Fleischer said that these remarks were
examples of why people need to watch
what they say in times like this. But that is
exactly the wrong idea; it is in these times
that dissent can be the most important.
Now is the time when Americans have
the need to blindly follow and agree with
the government. Listening to dissenting
opinions will give Americans a less biased
view of what is happening.'ABC is right to
keep Maher, and others should follow the
example of voicing minority opinions.
America’s staple of freedom is that of
free speech and the ability to criticize the
government. The war on terrorism has been
declared as a war protecting freedom and
the American way of life. Maher is a strik
ing example of what America stands for
and what the terrorists tried to destroy. If
America tries to stifle people like Bill
Maher, then the terrorists have won. The
American way of life was attacked and
when American wanted to shut down
Maher, it was once again attacked.
America needs an increased tolerance
and acceptance of views that are in the
minority. If America allows freedom of
speech to be stifled even once when con
trary views are spoken, then the terrorists
fulfill their wishes to destroy what is so
foreign to them.
Whether the majority of America
agrees with the broadcasted opinions is
not the concern. The concern is that
America must practice what it preaches
and accept these opinions.
Brieanne Porter is a junior
political science major.
The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 300 words or
less and include the author's name, class and phone number.
The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style and accu
racy. Letters may be submitted in person at 014 Reed McDonald with a valid stu
dent ID. Letters also may be mailed to:
The Battalion — Mail Call
014 Reed McDonald • MS 1111
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Fax: (979) 845-2647
Mail Call: mailcall@thebatt.com
Email: opinion@thebatt.com