3 Strikes Updates

For now, rounding up some notes/musings from some intel/info coming in at me today... Will hopefully smooth out the rough spots to these notes as I go along. Pardon the roughness for the time being; don't want to lose some of this stuff by fretting over its perfection or not.

Meanwhile, Looking for information/action?:
LINKS to more information here: http://hmny.me/3strikesbill
TAKE ACTION, 10 minutes, 3 calls:  http://hmny.me/3strikes3callsRECORD
---
There is a narrative shaping up on Beacon Hill, with legislators crafting a narrative that serves a political purpose --lets them create a feel-good "get tough" law THAT DOES NOT AFFECT ACTUAL CRIME-- whiel letting themselves off the hook for "fixing" a "worse" version of a bad bill.

What? I detail how it goes, below... and updating to add a youtube video of the Governor talking about the bill.  He is inhabiting that narrative... pretty well... but as I outline after, there are questions that need to be addressed (like, why would we be talking about ANY 3 strikes when IT DOES NOT WORK?).


Where he is SPOT-ON is the issue of SENTENCING REFORM, which he starts discussing at 2:00.  We would do well to call legislators to express support for reforming mandatory min. laws (favoring treatment over incarceration) and reductions of school zones (which targets people in city more than other places).

1. Outrageous mistakes where a violent criminal was paroled and killed again (Parole of killer scrutinized after he guns down officer, Boston Globe, 2011 Dec. 12) must be stopped. [AGREED: where the system fails us by releasing public enemies, we must address and fix. Smartly, though.]
2. In response to the outrage, the Senate and the House each passed broad packages of reform on the eve of Thanksgiving holiday. {Fact}
3. The Senate version had some good progressive reforms--notably, the reduction of school zone perimeters and reductions in sentencing minimums for non-violent drug offenders (as we know, overcrowding in prisons and the disproportionate effect of school zone and drugs charges on black communities is a giant systemic problem that exacerbates social disenfranchisement) [YAY!]
4. These GOOD reforms were able to get a vote/passage because of the emotional and push for law-and-order reforms in reaction to the killing of a Woburn police officer (by Cinelli who was paroled) [YAY!]
5. However, overly punitive "reforms" were ALSO passed in the Senate--notably, the inclusion of a "3 strikes and you're out"/minimum mandatory provision. [TRUE] 
6. The generally liberal/progressive House members' narrative goes like this:  The Senate's 3 Strikes provision is similar to other states' 3 Strikes, which casts a wide net and catches non-violent criminals (undeserving of the harsh sentences that would befall them automatically bc of said 3 Strikes provisions). [OK... Yes. This is one critique of 3 Strikes laws. Agreed.]
7. The narrative continues: The conscience-driven [ie, more liberal/progressive] members of Conference Committee are dedicated to making sure the reforms are just (ie, that they do not over zealously capture in its net those criminals whose records are non-violent (eg, getting life in jail bc of stealing dvds from Walmart)). [YAY!]
8. The narrative continues:  The more progressive members of the Conference Committee are ALSO committed to making sure we get needed REDUCTIONS in non-violent crime sentencing, specifically non-violent drug offenses [GOOD. YAY!]
9. The narrative continues:  The progressive members of the Conf. Committee are WORKING HARD to make the 3 Strikes provision VERY FOCUSED on *just* heinous crimes/criminals--so it will be TOTALLY DIFFERENT from other states' 3 strikes laws--and SO MUCH BETTER than the Senate's version of 3 strikes.   [hmm....OK...??]
10. Because of this (#9 above), CRITICISM OF THE 3 STRIKES PROVISION (that it will lead to overcrowding, oversentencing and overexpenses and be racist in its impact) ARE OFF-BASE! MERITLESS! READ THE CONF. COMMITTEE BILL (such as it is/isn't) --- it's ONLY targetting VIOLENT criminals!! [um....No.]
11. While NORMALLY "minimum mandatory sentencing" is a BAD thing (as it is "one size fits all" and removes judicial discretion [you know, their function in our democracy as envisioned by founding fathers])...  WE on the Conference Committee will be passing a REALLY GOOD minimum mandatory provision, triggered by 3 heinous offenses (Just don't call it "3 Strikes," ok?).  [What?]

by saying that the problem was "The original 3 strikes list was too long!!" (true) ---instead of, "3 strikes doesn't work, period" (truth)---they are making an OUT for themselves, bc they can say, "We narrowed it! Hooray!" (true) ... and evade the truth, that 3 strikes doesn't work. Period. 


It's like the healthcare fight all over again.  The truth is that SINGLE PAYER is the only real solution.  But the political middle ground was always going to be to the right of that (true). So Obama pre-compromised with himself, and didn't even put single payer on the table... And we ended up with no public option. Argh. 


-- 
As my friend SloD writes: 
The simplest, most pragmatic reason [to oppose 3 strikes policy] is that it forces people into life-without-parole sentences that states like California can't afford to imprison. It takes away sentencing discretion from judges and juries, creating the harshest possible sentence (in non-death-penalty states), regardless of the situation.


To which I add: 
In addition to all of those negative side effects... IT DOESN'T WORK as a deterrent to crime, which is the declared intent. Maybe we feel like it's "OK" to take away discretion and overcrowd prisons IF it does what it's supposed to--reduce crime (I don't but maybe that is a deal someone strikes in their head). But all facts/figures show that 3 strikes is completely ineffective as a deterrent. Crime has been going down in MA --without 3 strikes! Crime in 3 strikes states went down after passage...yes... BUT CRIME WENT DOWN IN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY TOO--ie, 3 strikes had nothing to do with reduced crime rates.

Do we want to reform our parole and prison and sentencing? YES.

Do we want to do it with something that DOESN"T WORK? WHy?!