'Three Strikes' Misses The Point

'Three Strikes' Misses the Point

Why not apply the same method many states use for repeat traffic offenders? Points are awarded for all traffic offenses, both minor and major. If one accumulates enough points, then license suspension is automatic.

In one simple system, repeat offenders are punished, on a proportionate basis, for everything from rolling through a stop sign to vehicular manslaughter. If states can keep track of stop sign violations, they can surely keep track of burglary and petty theft.

I held my nose, and voted for the ''three strikes'' initiative in Washington state. The measure mandates life imprisonment with no parole upon conviction for three violent felonies. The concept was later endorsed by President Clinton, and every other politician who wants (or needs) to ''get tough on crime.''

The problem is real. Research shows 70-80% of all crimes are committed by a small number of repeat offenders. But I still have problems with three strikes as a solution. It's too crude, too simple. But as a libertarian myself, I reject the complaints of self-proclaimed civil libertarians -- most of whom blithely assume there's no problem at all.

It's easy to find fault with three strikes, and I will do so here. But, it does seem fair to question the motives of critics who suggest no alternatives. This critic does have an alternative, suggested here for your consideration.

The national media have reported our first arrest under the three strikes rule, one Larry Fisher. Fisher's crime, after two prior felony convictions, was holding up a sandwich shop for $151. Fisher's first felony conviction was in 1986, for stealing $360 from his own grandfather. His second strike was stealing less than $100 from a pizza parlor.

The first thing we heard was outrage at life imprisonment for stealing $151. Good point. But the argument got weaker, as more facts came out. Fisher also has 13 other convictions mostly for burglary and assault, none of which qualify as a strike under Washington's definition.

Fisher is 35 years old. He's averaged more than one conviction per year during his entire adult life. His most recent conviction was less than a year before the $151 robbery. After last year's conviction, with that rap sheet, why was he still on the street?

This is a professional criminal. How many other crimes did he commit, without getting caught, that we don't even know about? I agree, life in prison may be extreme here. But, has he not earned at least ten years? And if not now, when?

In a single case, we can see two problems with the three strikes rule: it's too severe in some cases, while leaving us defenseless for far too long against the Larry Fishers of this world.

Instead, why not apply the same method many states use for repeat traffic offenders? Points are awarded for all traffic offenses, both minor and major. If one accumulates enough points, typically ten, then license suspension is automatic.

Let's apply that to our criminal justice system. Just for pondering, assume 10 points equals fifteen years with no parole, and 20 points equals a life sentence.

Petty crimes would be worth 1-3 points. Crimes like manslaughter and aggravated rape might be worth 12 points. We could even add points for using a gun. Once enacted, the point system would permit no flexibility whatsoever -- earn the points, do the time. But in crafting the legislation, we'd have unlimited flexibility to assign points based on the relative seriousness of various crimes.

I call that ''firm but fair.'' Isn't that what we all want?