'3 strikes' faces test of scope on Nov. 2

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 10/12/4 | Mark Martin

[SmithL]

Prop. 66 addresses debate -- is the law effective or cruel?

Sacramento -- Daniel Ozuna Smith's lengthy rap sheet includes robbery and kidnapping, and he once raped a pregnant woman at gunpoint. Gaylon Ray Shirley has been hooked on heroin and cocaine for years and was last convicted of possession of crack with intent to sell.

Both Smith and Shirley are serving 25-years-to-life sentences in California's crowded prisons. Both felons, and thousands of others, are at the center of a debate this year over whether the state's unique "three strikes" law is an effective way to send longtime lawbreakers to prison for good, or constitutes cruel and unusual punishment for drug addicts and shoplifters.

Ten years after voters overwhelmingly approved three strikes, they will have the chance to amend it on the Nov. 2 ballot. Proposition 66, designed mostly to prohibit three strikes sentences for those convicted of nonviolent crimes, has led to an intriguing campaign on both sides of the issue.

[SmithL]

The people who side with the criminals claim that we didn't understand what we were voting for when we passed "3 Strikes." We knew exactly what we were voting for.

[pikachu]

The people who side with the criminals claim that we didn't understand what we were voting for when we passed "3 Strikes."

I love it when Democrats say 'the public did not know' what they were voting for. The yare so egotistical that if you do not support their viewpoint that you a) don't understand what you are doing, b) not understanding just how much smarter they are than you and you should jsut go along since, after all, they are so much smart, or c) you are a right wing facist thug.

[AmericanChef]

I suspect the only reason they voted for 3 strikes was because 2 strikes wasn't offered.