THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Friday, November 4, 1994 TAG: 9411040005
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A20 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Medium: 59 lines
In July a man commits an armed robbery. In August he commits another. In September he's apprehended in the process of a third armed robbery and charged in the previous two robberies. He's convicted of the first robbery. Strike one. And the second. Strike two. And the third. Strike three.
He's out, right?
Wrong.
The General Assembly passed and Gov. George Allen signed last spring three-strikes-and-you're-out legislation. The public is under the impression that our armed robber would qualify. But the way the House Courts of Justice Committee rewrote the bill, in order to strike out an offender has to have twice been in; that is, unless a criminal has been convicted of two separate violent crimes and been incarcerated each time, a third conviction isn't the third strike necessary to put him ``out'' of circulation by a sentence of life without parole.
Why not? Because most legislators decided that so harsh a punishment as life without parole isn't warranted for ``two bad checks and the theft of a turkey,'' as columnist Molly Ivins put it recently. It's warranted only when a criminal has established a history of violent offenses and demonsrated by repeated incarcerations a resistasnce to rehabilitation.
Now, with the enhanced sentences that come with the abolition of parole (beginning with offenses that occur on or after Jan. 1, 1995) and the advent of bifurcated trials (in which juries as well as judges are told of a defendant's previous criminal record), repeat violent offenders can draw sentences that can amount to a life behind bars. And Virginia's three-strikes-and-you're-out law gives prosecutors plentiful discretion not to apply it to a thief who pulls a gun on a turkey.
What it doesn't give prosecutors - but should - is the option to apply three-strikes-and-you're-out to a thief who, say, on three separate occasions pulls a gun on a pizza deliveryman but isn't caught and incarcerated until his third known offense. Why should that count in his favor? It makes no nevermind to Victim No. 2 that he wasn't incarcerated after Victim No. 1, nor to Victim No. 3 that he wasn't imprisoned after Victim No. 2. And it makes no sense to a public that wanted not just truth in sentencing but enough sense and simplicity in sentencing to see some justice come of the criminal-justice system.
The General Assembly can and probably will revisit the three-strikes legislation. Here's a start: Eliminate the requirement that incarceration occur between violent offenses before three-strikes legislation can apply. Make it the accused's responsibility to persuade judge or jury why his third strike shouldn't put him out of circulation for life.
No parole and bifurcated trials add up not only to truth in sentencing but to longer sentences that reflect the public's concern with repeat violent offenders. But the three-strikes law ought to square with the way the legislation was initially pitched: They're out on third strike at the plate, not after they've rounded third. by CNB