FACTS ignores many Third Strike prisoners

Upon review of the "Three Strikes and Child Protection Act of 2004" initiative that has been submitted to the California Secretary of State by Families to Amend California Three Strikes (FACTS) and Citizens Against Violent Crime (CAVC), it is evident that they have no only abused the National Plantation Psychosis Awareness Committee's (NPPAC) services but are misrepresenting and misappropriating the 700,000 signatures and monies solidified from California prisoners' families, friends and supporters, in that when FACTS/CAVC solicited these signatures and monies, it was done under the pretense and expectation of the people that the Three Strike Initiative would be written so that all non-violent offenders would be exempt from the Three Strike clause.

However, now that FACTS/CAVC has secured the needed 700,000 signatures and monies from the people, it has now flipped the script to exclude a very large segment of non-violent offenders from the initiative.

This large segment of non-violent offenders are those of us who were convicted of "second degree" robbery, which pursuant to Penal Code 213, is a non-violent offense. That is to say, no weapon or force was used.

These "second degree" non-violent robberies are incorporated into Penal Code 667.5(c)(9) as "any robbery." Moreover, due to the "any robbery" language of Penal Code 667.5(c)(9), the vast majority of the "second degree robbery" class of prisoners and their supporters are not even aware that "second degree" robbery is a non-violent offense, pursuant to Penal Code 213.

Thus, by the initiative submitted by FACTS/CAVC not amending penal Code 667.5(c)(9) language from "any robbery" to the language of "first degree armed and/or strong armed robbery" is a carbon copy of what Pete Wilson had originally done to us. Only this time around, the initiative is subliminally dressed down to covertly exclude only "certain classes" of non-violent offenders from the Three Strike lynch clause, as opposed to all non-violent offenders as was proposed to the people in exchange for their work, signatures and monies.

This is an extremely critical issue and by far no small matter, in that the "second degree" robbery class of non-violent offenders is significantly larger than even the petty theft class of non-violent offenders. However, it is this former and larger class of non-violent offenders who are not being represented in the initiative.

Needless to say that time is of the essence, in that this defective initiative is scheduled and submitted to be placed on the November 2, 2004 ballot. Therefore, it is incumbent of all concerned parties out there on the street and behind these walls to immediately write, call, fax and/or email the FACTS/CAVC headquarters to demand for this initiative to amend the language of Penal Code 667.5(c)(9) from "any robbery" to the language of "first degree armed and/or strong armed robbery" from this draconian Three Strike lynch clause.

Do not delay! Our very lives and the lives of our loved ones depend on you to set the captives free!

The address and phone number to the FACT/CAVC headquarters are as follows:

FACTS Headquarters
3982 So. Fiqueroa St. #207A
Los Angeles, CA 90036
Phone: (213) 746-4844

CAVC Headquarters
12922 Harbor Blvd.
Garden Grove, CA 92840
Phone: (714) 547-9842

-- A California Prisoner, May 2004

MIM replies:

The Three Strikes law in California is one of many aggressive laws dedicated to filling up the prisons. It includes the provision that if a person is convicted of any felony and has two previous violent or serious felony convictions, he or she is sentenced to a life sentence with the possibility of parole. This means giving people even longer sentences than prescribed for their crime.

This article is a correct criticism of FACTS proposed amendment on the Three Strikes law in California. But it's not surprising, in fact it is predictable that anyone trying to amend a fundamentally unjust law is going to leave at least some injustice in there. The FACTS petition to get this initiative on the ballot states:

"The 'Three-Strikes' Law is sending minor offenders away for 25 years to life and bankrupting the State of California in the process. An overwhelming number of second and third strike cases prosecuted in the state are non-serious, non-violent felonies. This is serving the prison industrial complex, not the people. The prison budget exceeds the budget for higher education! We, the undersigned, support legislation that will limit the application of the 'Three Strikes Law' to serious and violent felonies."

They left in the "serious felonies" definition even in the petition, leaving the way open to keeping non-violent felons under the Three Strikes law.

On their web site FACTS offers some good arguments against the Three Strikes law, including that it is not proven as a deterrent, that it is unjust punishment, that it is disproportionately targeting oppressed nationals, and that it violates double jeopardy. But they fail to explain why it is OK to keep the Three Strikes law for people who commit "serious and violent felonies" when these reasons all apply regardless of the conviction. The FACTS web site is an excellent case for abolishing this law entirely.

This underscores the problem with fighting for reforms within the criminal injustice system, or any other aspect of imperialism. We may be able to win small battles, like restricting who the reactionary Three Strikes laws apply to, but we will ultimately be leaving the injustice system in place and leaving behind many more people still suffering from the system. Principled anti-imperialists need to push the struggle for reforms as far as we can within the system, calling for the end to the reactionary Three Strikes laws, the elimination of prison Control Units, and end to the imperialist death penalty, etc. And in this context we need to educate people about why these reforms still won't solve the problems of the criminal injustice system. MIM has been pushing for an end to the Three Strikes law for years, and we stand with NPPAC and other organizations and individuals in demanding that this unjust law must be eliminated.

Notes: FACTS web site