For all who are interested in amending the 3 Strikes Law to violent felonies only so non-violent offenders will not spend the rest of their lives in prison at an average cost of $49,300 per person (money which is taken from schools and social services) you may be interested in Mr. Juarez's answers to my questions. I was impressed by his answer to questions 2a.
If you live in Hawthorne, I strongly suggest you vote for Daniel Juarez. The incumbent, Larry Guidi is a strong advocate for the 3 Strikes Law as it now stands, that is, prisons not schools.
Here's Mr. Juarez's answers:
Please answer my two questions.
1. The 3 Strikes Law has a dramatic effect on the California 's budget, communities of color, families and the individual inmate himself/herself. Can you tell me what you know about this effect in terms of finance, mental and physical distress?
Yes, I support California ’s “Three Strikes” law. Although this law acts as a deterrent for some criminals, it also has been criticized as applying a one-size-fits-all sentence mentality to repeat offenders. There are flaws with this law. The law destroys the flexibility of the courts and the judge; is unjust in certain conditions (i.e. - victimless crimes, young criminals, etc.); criminals often plea bargain their first two convictions; violates the 8th Amendment to the Constitution; an arrest of someone with two convictions almost guarantees the cost and time of a trial; and the law adds more criminals to an already crowded and expensive prison system.
2a. Are you in favor of amending the 3 Strikes Law to violent felonies only?
I feel that California 's Three-Strikes Law needs to be amended. The law should be changed so that it only applies to violent and serious crimes. Minor offenders who steal a loaf of bread or a bottle of shampoo should not be given 25 to life sentences. As written, the Three-Strikes Law currently applies to nonviolent petty and violent crimes.
If the law were changed, then the revision would do the following: return the law back to what the voters originally intended - a law to keep violent criminals in prison; require mandatory increased sentences only when convictions are for a violent felony such as rape, robbery or murder; preserve the original intent of the three-strikes law so that violent, dangerous criminals will continue to be punished harshly, with mandatory sentences of double-time for a second violent felony and 25 years-to-life for a third violent felony; be consistent with 26 other states (California's law is the only one that applies to non-violent crimes); allow prisoners now serving Three-Strikes sentences to apply for and receive a re-sentencing hearing. As many as 35,000 could qualify for one because their offense would no longer count as a strike; save the State as much as 700 million dollars a year in prison operating costs, and more than a billion dollars for construction of new prisons.
2b. If elected, would you support an amendment of the law in the Hawthorne City Council?
As you know I am already a sitting councilmember. As far as supporting an amendment of the law at a municipal level, I would need to check with our city attorney. This issue needs to be carried to the state by our local state legislators. As mayor, I would work in collaboration with our new assemblyman and state senator to author an amendment.