Three Strikes and the Walking Dead

Thomas Jefferson, the third President of the United States, felt that slavery was a moral wrong. Yet, unlike George Washington, the first President, who freed over 200 of his personal slaves at his death, President Jefferson believed that if the African slaves of the United States were freed, they would rise up and seek revenge on their former masters. History has proven that Jefferson's fears were unfounded; on the contrary, it was the freed slaves of America that suffered persecution for decades after they were freed.

The proponents of the draconian "Three Strikes" law have tried to terrorize the people of California with doomsday scenarios, of thousands of violent, bloodthirsty felons being set free to prey on a helpless society. These fears are also unfounded. Currently, there are five to six thousand three-strikers in prison for 25 years to life; none of the men/women who would be affected by the Amendment are in prison for violent crimes. The irony of the law is that some of the so-called violent or serious crimes are 10, 15, 20, and even 30 years old. Yet, the law was written to get around outmoded ideals such as the United States Constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy, ex post facto violations, and, most importantly, cruel and unusual punishment meted out for minor crimes (many of them misdemeanors prior to 1994). Men/women, whose average age is 40 years old, being sent to prison for the rest of their lives is especially evil when the average life expectancy is 63 years for Blacks and even lower for Hispanics, which make up the vast majority of those sentenced under 3 strikes.

In the months before the November 2nd election, there will be those who will lie, twist the truth, give the public another does of disinformation, as they did to get the law passed in 1994. After the death of an innocent little girl, the public was led to believe that violent felons would receive 25 years to life; while in reality, people were sent to prison, and are still in prison, for petty crimes-e.g., a drug addict having drugs worth no more than $2.00 in his pocket, shoplifters, petty thieves, and those who failed to register as drug offenders.

Even our new Governor in one televised debate acknowledged that "the wool was pulled over the eyes of California voters," concerning the three strikes law. But now he has put on the mantle of all the other career politicians, trying to justify an unjust law by saying it prevents violent crime. While violent crime rages in our cities, those of us who are the peacekeepers in prison, model inmates, wait to die slowly, for minor infractions. People convicted of 1st degree murder are eligible for parole in 17 years, and for 2nd degree murder, parole is available after 12 years. But those sentenced for what we may do in the future must serve 25 years before we are eligible for parole; if parole is granted most of the men and women will be 70 plus years old. So in reality it would have been more humane and much cheaper to send all three-strikers to death row, because most of us will die in prison, our children grow up without mothers or fathers. As Jefferson feared, another generation may be worse without us who belong to the ranks of the walking dead. It will be virtually impossible for a 70-year-old woman/man on being released after 25 years of prison to find a job. The public will have to care for us with welfare, SSI, etc., when our productive years have been wasted. None of us have killed, raped, robbed, high jacked, assaulted, or maimed anyone. Yet, our lives are forfeit simply because like Jefferson, the powers that be are more worried about admitting a mistake than acknowledging the unjust wrongs of this law.

Revenge is frowned on in the American system of justice. Mike Reynolds, a grieving father whose daughter was killed in a senseless act of violence, has done just that. He has avenged the death of his daughter by writing and vigorously promoting a law that punishes minor crimes with a life sentence. It would be the same if the family of victims in Court proceedings were allowed to sit on the jury during trial.

In interviews Mr. Reynolds makes statements such as "keeping even non-violent strikers in prison is saving lives." Or that the Hillside Strangler, who killed 19 women, if the law were weakened would only have been convicted of one murder-which is blatantly false, yet these are the kinds of scare tactics that are being used to bolster the law. Mr. Reynolds says that "a few may not deserve life in prison, but the courts will weed them out." But in truth, the law has in fact tied the hands of the Courts.

In conclusion, we that are sentenced to die implore the voters of California to spare our lives, give us the chance to serve some useful purpose in the life that's left to us. The district attorneys, prison guards union, and the police have a vested interest in keeping prisons full to capacity -- which is nothing more than job security! What does it say of a nation that has turned the misery of its citizens into a cottage industry? We that are sentenced to die are also shocked and saddened by images of murder and violence. We too believe that if our crimes were that type, then the punishment should fit the crime and there would be no argument from us. But this law is wrong and unjust: we strikers are in our desperate hours, praying that the voters of California will see the injustice of the three strikes law.

-- A California prisoner, Pleasant Valley State Prison, July 2004