Although "3 Strikes" sponsors claim that their purpose is to protect
society from only the most dangerous felons, many of the "3 Strikes"
proposals encompass a broad range of criminal conduct, from rape to
minor assaults. In an open letter to the Washington State voters,
more than 20 current and former prosecutors urged the public to vote
against the "3 Strikes" proposal. To explain why they opposed the
law's passage, they described the following scenario:
"An 18-year old high school senior pushes a classmate down to steal
his Michael Jordan $150 sneakers -- Strike One; he gets out of jail
and shoplifts a jacket from the Bon Marche, pushing aside the clerk
as he runs out of the store -- Strike Two; he gets out of jail,
straightens out, and nine years later gets in a fight in a bar and
intentionally hits someone, breaking his nose -- criminal behavior,
to be sure, but hardly the crime of the century, yet it is Strike
Three. He is sent to prison for the rest of his life."
Friday, May 30, 2008
con closing argument
Under our system of criminal justice, the punishment must fit the
crime. Individuals should not be executed for burglarizing a house
nor incarcerated for life for committing relatively minor offenses,
even when they commit several of them. This principle, known as
"proportionality," is expressed in the Eighth Amendment to the Bill
of Rights:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Many of the "3 Strikes" proposals depart sharply from the
proportionality rule by failing to take into consideration the
gravity of the offense. Pennsylvania's proposed law treats
prostitution and burglary as "strikes" for purposes of imposing a
life sentence without parole. Several California proposals provide
that the first two felonies must be "violent," but that the third
offense can be any felony, even a non-violent crime like petty theft.
Such laws offend our constitutional traditions.
The "3 Strikes" proposals are based on the mistaken belief that
focusing on an offender after the crime has been committed, which
harsh sentencing schemes do, will lead to a reduction in the crime
rate. But if 34 million serious crimes are committed each year in
the U.S., and only 3 million result in arrest, something must be done
to prevent those crimes from happening in the first place.
crime. Individuals should not be executed for burglarizing a house
nor incarcerated for life for committing relatively minor offenses,
even when they commit several of them. This principle, known as
"proportionality," is expressed in the Eighth Amendment to the Bill
of Rights:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Many of the "3 Strikes" proposals depart sharply from the
proportionality rule by failing to take into consideration the
gravity of the offense. Pennsylvania's proposed law treats
prostitution and burglary as "strikes" for purposes of imposing a
life sentence without parole. Several California proposals provide
that the first two felonies must be "violent," but that the third
offense can be any felony, even a non-violent crime like petty theft.
Such laws offend our constitutional traditions.
The "3 Strikes" proposals are based on the mistaken belief that
focusing on an offender after the crime has been committed, which
harsh sentencing schemes do, will lead to a reduction in the crime
rate. But if 34 million serious crimes are committed each year in
the U.S., and only 3 million result in arrest, something must be done
to prevent those crimes from happening in the first place.
Con Argument opening
Racial bias in the criminal justice system is rampant. African
American men, in particular, are overrepresented in all criminal
justice statistics: arrests, victimization, incarceration and
executions.
This imbalance is largely the result of the "war on drugs."
Although studies show that drug use among blacks and whites is
comparable, many more blacks than whites are arrested on drug
charges. Why? because the police find it easier to concentrate their
forces in inner city neighborhoods, where drug dealing tends to take
place on the streets, than to mount more costly and demanding
investigations in the suburbs, where drug dealing generally occurs
behind closed doors. Today, one in four young black men is are under
some form of criminal sanction, be it incarceration, probation or
parole.
Because many of these laws include drug offenses as prior "strikes,"
more black than white offenders will be subject to life sentences
under a "3 Strikes" law.
American men, in particular, are overrepresented in all criminal
justice statistics: arrests, victimization, incarceration and
executions.
This imbalance is largely the result of the "war on drugs."
Although studies show that drug use among blacks and whites is
comparable, many more blacks than whites are arrested on drug
charges. Why? because the police find it easier to concentrate their
forces in inner city neighborhoods, where drug dealing tends to take
place on the streets, than to mount more costly and demanding
investigations in the suburbs, where drug dealing generally occurs
behind closed doors. Today, one in four young black men is are under
some form of criminal sanction, be it incarceration, probation or
parole.
Because many of these laws include drug offenses as prior "strikes,"
more black than white offenders will be subject to life sentences
under a "3 Strikes" law.
Opening Argument for Con
In my opening argument I want you to think about a few very important effects of this law. It is interesting to note: that many law enforcement professionals oppose the Three strikes law, our court systems are already backed up with cases, and the three strikes law allows for differences in sentencing.
Many law enforcement professionals oppose the "3 Strikes" law out of
fear such laws would spur a dramatic increase in violence against
police, corrections officers and the public. A criminal facing the
prospect of a mandatory life sentence will be far more likely to
resist arrest, to kill witnesses or to attempt a prison escape. Dave
Paul, a corrections officer from Milwaukee, Oregon, wrote in a
newspaper article: "Imagine a law enforcement officer trying to
arrest a twice-convicted felon who has nothing to lose by using any
means necessary to escape. Expect assaults on police and
correctional officers to rise." (Portland Oregonian,
3/94). Ironically, these laws may cause more, not less, loss of
life.
The criminal courts already suffer from serious backlogs. The
extraordinarily high arrest rates resulting from the "war on drugs"
have placed enormous burdens on prosecutors, defense lawyers and
judges, whose caseloads have grown exponentially over the past
decade. "Three strikes" laws will make a bad situation even worse.
Faced with a mandatory life sentence, repeat offenders will demand
costly and time-consuming trials rather than submit to plea
bargaining. Normal felonies resolved by a plea bargain cost $600 to
defend, while a full blown criminal trial costs as much as $50,000.
Since most of the defendants will be indigent and require public
defenders, the expense of their defense will be paid by taxpayers.
The "3 Strikes" proposals differ from most habitual offender laws in
that they make life sentences without parole mandatory. Thus, they
tie the hands of judges who have traditionally been responsible for
weighing both mitigating and aggravating circumstances before
imposing sentence. Judicial discretion in sentencing, which is
admired all over the world for treating people as individuals, is one
of the hallmarks of our justice system. But the rigid formula
imposed by "3 Strikes" renders the role of sentencing judges almost
superfluous.
Eliminating the possibility of parole ignores the fact that even the
most incorrigible offenders can be transformed while in prison.
Countless examples are on record of convicts who have reformed
themselves through study, good works, religious conversion or other
efforts during years spent behind bars. Such people ought deserve a
second chance that "3 Strikes" laws make impossible.
Many law enforcement professionals oppose the "3 Strikes" law out of
fear such laws would spur a dramatic increase in violence against
police, corrections officers and the public. A criminal facing the
prospect of a mandatory life sentence will be far more likely to
resist arrest, to kill witnesses or to attempt a prison escape. Dave
Paul, a corrections officer from Milwaukee, Oregon, wrote in a
newspaper article: "Imagine a law enforcement officer trying to
arrest a twice-convicted felon who has nothing to lose by using any
means necessary to escape. Expect assaults on police and
correctional officers to rise." (Portland Oregonian,
3/94). Ironically, these laws may cause more, not less, loss of
life.
The criminal courts already suffer from serious backlogs. The
extraordinarily high arrest rates resulting from the "war on drugs"
have placed enormous burdens on prosecutors, defense lawyers and
judges, whose caseloads have grown exponentially over the past
decade. "Three strikes" laws will make a bad situation even worse.
Faced with a mandatory life sentence, repeat offenders will demand
costly and time-consuming trials rather than submit to plea
bargaining. Normal felonies resolved by a plea bargain cost $600 to
defend, while a full blown criminal trial costs as much as $50,000.
Since most of the defendants will be indigent and require public
defenders, the expense of their defense will be paid by taxpayers.
The "3 Strikes" proposals differ from most habitual offender laws in
that they make life sentences without parole mandatory. Thus, they
tie the hands of judges who have traditionally been responsible for
weighing both mitigating and aggravating circumstances before
imposing sentence. Judicial discretion in sentencing, which is
admired all over the world for treating people as individuals, is one
of the hallmarks of our justice system. But the rigid formula
imposed by "3 Strikes" renders the role of sentencing judges almost
superfluous.
Eliminating the possibility of parole ignores the fact that even the
most incorrigible offenders can be transformed while in prison.
Countless examples are on record of convicts who have reformed
themselves through study, good works, religious conversion or other
efforts during years spent behind bars. Such people ought deserve a
second chance that "3 Strikes" laws make impossible.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
info
In certain circumstance where the sentencing court finds that a second or third strike defendant falls outside the "spirit" of the 3-Strikes Law, the court may, either on motion of the prosecutor or on the court’s own motion, strike or dismiss one or more "strike" priors. This is done pursuant to the power vested in the courts since 1860 to dismiss all or part of an action for good cause and in furtherance of justice. The court must state on the record and include in the court minutes the facts which the court finds justify dismissing the prior. A decision to strike or dismiss a "strike" prior is appealable by the prosecution and reviewable by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. The San Diego Public Defender’s Office is proud to have been the law firm which established this rule of law in the California Supreme Court in the first 3-Strikes case to be decided by the Supreme Court. (People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.)
Megan's LAW
"Megan's Law is named after a 7-year-old Hamilton Township, New Jersey girl named Megan Nicole Kanka. On July 29, 1994, she was lured into her neighbor's home with the promise of seeing a puppy. Instead, Megan was brutally raped and murdered by a two-time convicted sex offender who had been convicted in 1981 of an attack on a 5-year-old child and an attempted sexual assault on a 7-year-old.
Eighty-nine days after Megan Kanka's disappearance, New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman signed the first state-level version of what we know as Megan's Law.
The passage of Megan's Law in New Jersey eventually led to the May 1996 passage of a federal law which is also known as Megan's Law.
New Jersey's Megan's Law has specific mandates for active community notification which ensures that the community will be made aware of the presence of convicted sex offenders who may pose a risk to public safety.
Under New Jersey's law, if a convicted sex offender is determined to pose a moderate risk of re-offending then schools and community groups likely to encounter that offender will be notified.
If an offender is determined to pose a high risk of re-offending, then schools, community groups and members of the public, such as neighbors who are likely to encounter the offender, will be notified.
Parents nationwide have been under the false impression that they, too, would be notified of a resident sexual predator, because of the false assumption that New Jersey's state law is the same as each individual state's law.
The federal version of Megan's Law is drastically different than New Jersey's version of Megan's Law. The federal law requires all 50 states to release information to the public about known convicted sex offenders when it is necessary to protect their safety but do not mandate active notification.
If a state fails to comply with minimal release of information standards established by the federal government, then that state risks losing federal crime-fighting funding.
The federal mandate to release information to the public is often mistakenly referred to as community notification when, in actuality, the federal mandate requires just the release of information to the public--not active notification.
There is a significant difference between simply releasing information (making it available for the public to access on its own) and active community notification, when law enforcement officers go door to door to inform neighbors and schools.
The federal Megan's Law does not require all 50 states to enact active notification laws, whereas New Jersey's Megan's Law has specific requirements for active community notification. Not all 50 states allow this data to be viewed on the internet as well."
Eighty-nine days after Megan Kanka's disappearance, New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman signed the first state-level version of what we know as Megan's Law.
The passage of Megan's Law in New Jersey eventually led to the May 1996 passage of a federal law which is also known as Megan's Law.
New Jersey's Megan's Law has specific mandates for active community notification which ensures that the community will be made aware of the presence of convicted sex offenders who may pose a risk to public safety.
Under New Jersey's law, if a convicted sex offender is determined to pose a moderate risk of re-offending then schools and community groups likely to encounter that offender will be notified.
If an offender is determined to pose a high risk of re-offending, then schools, community groups and members of the public, such as neighbors who are likely to encounter the offender, will be notified.
Parents nationwide have been under the false impression that they, too, would be notified of a resident sexual predator, because of the false assumption that New Jersey's state law is the same as each individual state's law.
The federal version of Megan's Law is drastically different than New Jersey's version of Megan's Law. The federal law requires all 50 states to release information to the public about known convicted sex offenders when it is necessary to protect their safety but do not mandate active notification.
If a state fails to comply with minimal release of information standards established by the federal government, then that state risks losing federal crime-fighting funding.
The federal mandate to release information to the public is often mistakenly referred to as community notification when, in actuality, the federal mandate requires just the release of information to the public--not active notification.
There is a significant difference between simply releasing information (making it available for the public to access on its own) and active community notification, when law enforcement officers go door to door to inform neighbors and schools.
The federal Megan's Law does not require all 50 states to enact active notification laws, whereas New Jersey's Megan's Law has specific requirements for active community notification. Not all 50 states allow this data to be viewed on the internet as well."
Pro Argument Possible Closing
The three strikes law what a powerful tool for the judicial system. I firmly believe that everyone deserves a second chance, depending on the situation. If someone is convicted of a violent crime the first time then let the legal system do it job, a second time offense let it work again. If there is a third offense then let the three strikes law take into effect, but before the second offense can take place if it does we as a society must inform, and educate the offender of what can happen to him or her if they decide reach that level in their life.
I am all for this law, California did not show any signs of a drop in criminal activity with this law, but what about the other states that did how were they different, what did they do different that's what should be looked at. I sure would feel more secure knowing that a criminal that has two strikes against them has the possibility of going to prison for a long time if they choose to do another crime. Ask yourself this question what if it was your husband,wife,grandmother,or even your child who had a violent crime committed against them wouldn't you want to have every possible legal weapon on your side to help convict this person?
I am all for this law, California did not show any signs of a drop in criminal activity with this law, but what about the other states that did how were they different, what did they do different that's what should be looked at. I sure would feel more secure knowing that a criminal that has two strikes against them has the possibility of going to prison for a long time if they choose to do another crime. Ask yourself this question what if it was your husband,wife,grandmother,or even your child who had a violent crime committed against them wouldn't you want to have every possible legal weapon on your side to help convict this person?
Pro Arguments
I am completely for the three strikes law. Everyday more and more people are getting away with things and committing more crimes. And everyday it seems like our world is getting less safe. If more things are not going to be done to fix this, then who knows how bad it will get. That is why I think something like the three strikes law is a good thing.
Now, the three strikes law is exactly what it says...Three consecutive offenses and you will be punished, hopefully severely. This works extremely well when it comes to harsher crimes such as rape, murder, sexual offenders, etc, although the first two times were too much as it is. I actually feel the first attempt on any of these should be the maximum punishment. I do not believe anyone for any reason should walk free after committing one of these crimes.
Now, some people may argue that being caught for something as little as shoplifting three times doesn't require such a harsh punishment. I do. Look at it this way...the less serious crimes, such as theft and shoplifting, can help us feel a little bit safer as well as just knowing that something is actually being done to try and control if not stop these people. I know it would make me feel a little safer when I'm out shopping. I don't want to have to worry about someone trying to run off with my purse while I'm walking through the mall or to my car.
Carjacking is another crime that needs to be stopped. It may seem a little harsh to lock someone up for shoplifting, but it was their third offense. A couple of days in jail wouldn't hurt them. If they are just slapped on the wrist they are bound to do it again. Then it will only be a matter of time before they start committing even worser crimes. There needs to be something out there such as the three strikes law to let them know they won't always get away with it.
According to the three strikes law website, California's crime rate went down 32.7% compared to the 13.0%. They said it was because these individuals fear being caught and being punished. Even though these people do not use any kind of moral judgment, they are at least not committing these crimes in fear of being caught. I have to say that's better than nothing. We just recently talked about consequential people in class...where people make decisions based on the consequences. This is better than them not thinking about it at all and committing the crimes anyway.
I don't see how any bad could come from this law. It couldn't hurt to try it and see if it helps the crime rate at all. What's the worst it could do, put not so innocent people somewhere that they won't be able to commit any crimes whatsoever??
Now, the three strikes law is exactly what it says...Three consecutive offenses and you will be punished, hopefully severely. This works extremely well when it comes to harsher crimes such as rape, murder, sexual offenders, etc, although the first two times were too much as it is. I actually feel the first attempt on any of these should be the maximum punishment. I do not believe anyone for any reason should walk free after committing one of these crimes.
Now, some people may argue that being caught for something as little as shoplifting three times doesn't require such a harsh punishment. I do. Look at it this way...the less serious crimes, such as theft and shoplifting, can help us feel a little bit safer as well as just knowing that something is actually being done to try and control if not stop these people. I know it would make me feel a little safer when I'm out shopping. I don't want to have to worry about someone trying to run off with my purse while I'm walking through the mall or to my car.
Carjacking is another crime that needs to be stopped. It may seem a little harsh to lock someone up for shoplifting, but it was their third offense. A couple of days in jail wouldn't hurt them. If they are just slapped on the wrist they are bound to do it again. Then it will only be a matter of time before they start committing even worser crimes. There needs to be something out there such as the three strikes law to let them know they won't always get away with it.
According to the three strikes law website, California's crime rate went down 32.7% compared to the 13.0%. They said it was because these individuals fear being caught and being punished. Even though these people do not use any kind of moral judgment, they are at least not committing these crimes in fear of being caught. I have to say that's better than nothing. We just recently talked about consequential people in class...where people make decisions based on the consequences. This is better than them not thinking about it at all and committing the crimes anyway.
I don't see how any bad could come from this law. It couldn't hurt to try it and see if it helps the crime rate at all. What's the worst it could do, put not so innocent people somewhere that they won't be able to commit any crimes whatsoever??
argument
If you killed someone today, would you be able to walk the streets in California as a free person?
One thing that the individuals who have created this law want us to believe is that without this law we have no chance of putting criminals away for a long time. That is misleading and untrue. As it currently stands we have had laws on the books since the creation of our laws that will punish criminals for serious crimes. So we really need to ask ourselves in all honesty is the Three Strikes Law really needed or is it just a buffer to our current laws.
The max for 1st degree murder is 99 years in prison. If a person is convicted of 1st degree murder a jury of his/her peers will decide what the sentence should be. In a recent case involving the murder of an Alaska girl, the convicted murderer Mr. Lawson was convicted of 2nd degree murder and the judge sentenced him to 99 years in prison.
In this case there was no mention of the The Three Strikes Law in fact his past crimes were not disclosed to the jury. The judge said that he needed the jury to make a judgment on the current case and not on actions from this man’s past.
This case proves that we do in fact have great laws that have existed prior to the creation of the Three Strikes Law. This case further proves that a person can be sentenced to a life sentence for their crime without the three strikes law ever being used.
One thing that the individuals who have created this law want us to believe is that without this law we have no chance of putting criminals away for a long time. That is misleading and untrue. As it currently stands we have had laws on the books since the creation of our laws that will punish criminals for serious crimes. So we really need to ask ourselves in all honesty is the Three Strikes Law really needed or is it just a buffer to our current laws.
The max for 1st degree murder is 99 years in prison. If a person is convicted of 1st degree murder a jury of his/her peers will decide what the sentence should be. In a recent case involving the murder of an Alaska girl, the convicted murderer Mr. Lawson was convicted of 2nd degree murder and the judge sentenced him to 99 years in prison.
In this case there was no mention of the The Three Strikes Law in fact his past crimes were not disclosed to the jury. The judge said that he needed the jury to make a judgment on the current case and not on actions from this man’s past.
This case proves that we do in fact have great laws that have existed prior to the creation of the Three Strikes Law. This case further proves that a person can be sentenced to a life sentence for their crime without the three strikes law ever being used.
Closing Argument
If you killed someone today, would you be able to walk the streets In California as a free person?
One thing that the indivduals who have created this law want us to believe is that without this law we have no chance of putting criminals away for a long time. That is misleading and untrue. As it currently stands we have had laws on the books since the creation of our laws that will punish criminals for serious crimes against another human being. So we really need to ask ourselves in all honesty is the Three Strikes Law really needed or is it a buffer to our current laws.
The max for 1st degree murder is 99 years in prison. If a person is convicted of 1st degree murder a jury of his/her peers will decide what the sentence should be. In a recnt case involving the murder of an Alaska girl, Mr. Lawson was convicted of 2nd degree murder and his sentence was 99 yers in prision. In Lawson's case there was no mention of the The Three Strikes Law in fact his past crimes were not disclosed to the jury. The judge said that he needed the jury to make a judgement on the current case and not on actions from his past.
In closing we do in fact have great laws that have exsited prior to the creation of the Three Strikes Law.
One thing that the indivduals who have created this law want us to believe is that without this law we have no chance of putting criminals away for a long time. That is misleading and untrue. As it currently stands we have had laws on the books since the creation of our laws that will punish criminals for serious crimes against another human being. So we really need to ask ourselves in all honesty is the Three Strikes Law really needed or is it a buffer to our current laws.
The max for 1st degree murder is 99 years in prison. If a person is convicted of 1st degree murder a jury of his/her peers will decide what the sentence should be. In a recnt case involving the murder of an Alaska girl, Mr. Lawson was convicted of 2nd degree murder and his sentence was 99 yers in prision. In Lawson's case there was no mention of the The Three Strikes Law in fact his past crimes were not disclosed to the jury. The judge said that he needed the jury to make a judgement on the current case and not on actions from his past.
In closing we do in fact have great laws that have exsited prior to the creation of the Three Strikes Law.
Opening Argument
As a Latino here today writing against the Three Strikes' Law, I personally believe that this law creates a great discrepency between the race of criminals that are sentenced as a result of the three strikes law.
I want us all to think about Issac Ramirez's case. Issac Ramirez was a man convicted under the three strikes law. Issac's case is not out of the norm but his actions to change his outcome are in fact out of the norm. As you all may know that Issac Ramirez's first strike was given to him after he tried to steal some cold cuts from a local Lucky grocery store. On the way out of the store Issac 's get away driver accendentally ran over the stores security guards foot. Issac's was convicted for robbery and assult. A few years later Issac tried to steal a VCR worth $199 from a local Walmart. Issac bumped into the attending security guard on the way out of the store. Issac was aagain charged with robbery and assault. Issac's Third strike was for stealing a TV from a local Kmart. Issac Ramirez was able to apply for an appeal and he was able to successfully win his case. Issac is a free man , and he works at a church in Riverside and he has commited his days to the Church.
We must realize that not all criminals are unable to be rehibilitated. How many more Issac Ramirez' are there currently in prision now serving time under the Three Strikes Law. How many minorties are currentky in prision wasting our tax payers money when they can be rehibilitated.
I want us all to think about Issac Ramirez's case. Issac Ramirez was a man convicted under the three strikes law. Issac's case is not out of the norm but his actions to change his outcome are in fact out of the norm. As you all may know that Issac Ramirez's first strike was given to him after he tried to steal some cold cuts from a local Lucky grocery store. On the way out of the store Issac 's get away driver accendentally ran over the stores security guards foot. Issac's was convicted for robbery and assult. A few years later Issac tried to steal a VCR worth $199 from a local Walmart. Issac bumped into the attending security guard on the way out of the store. Issac was aagain charged with robbery and assault. Issac's Third strike was for stealing a TV from a local Kmart. Issac Ramirez was able to apply for an appeal and he was able to successfully win his case. Issac is a free man , and he works at a church in Riverside and he has commited his days to the Church.
We must realize that not all criminals are unable to be rehibilitated. How many more Issac Ramirez' are there currently in prision now serving time under the Three Strikes Law. How many minorties are currentky in prision wasting our tax payers money when they can be rehibilitated.
Closing Argument
I want to begin by thanking all of our esteemed judges for taking the time to come here today to here our debate.
I hope that we have left very little doubt in your minds as to why the Three Strikes Law is a good law.
In closing I want YOU to LOOK around the room at all of the young children in this room. As you look at all of us I want you think about little Polly Clasp and I want you to remeber that she did not have the opportunity to attend middle School. I want you to know that she will never have the opportunity to graduate from college. Polly will never have the opportunity to get married and have children of her own.
I want you to know and understand that it is indeeed important to protect the littlest victims our children. This law does just that, it gives hope to all children.
I thank you for your precious time. Have a blessed day and a safe journey home.
I hope that we have left very little doubt in your minds as to why the Three Strikes Law is a good law.
In closing I want YOU to LOOK around the room at all of the young children in this room. As you look at all of us I want you think about little Polly Clasp and I want you to remeber that she did not have the opportunity to attend middle School. I want you to know that she will never have the opportunity to graduate from college. Polly will never have the opportunity to get married and have children of her own.
I want you to know and understand that it is indeeed important to protect the littlest victims our children. This law does just that, it gives hope to all children.
I thank you for your precious time. Have a blessed day and a safe journey home.
Opening Argument
Good morning,
We are all here today to hear arguments in favor of and against the Three Strikes' Law. I would like to begin with saying that I am in favor of the Three Strikes Law. The genesis for the Three Strikes Law was the 1993 kidnapping, rape, torture and murder of twelve-year-old Polly Klaas. Richard Allen Davis, the perpetrator of the crime, was caught and ultimately convicted. Davis had a long criminal history (robbery, burglary, assault, kidnapping) and was on parole when he kidnapped Polly. Had he been imprisoned for life after his third felony, Polly would still be alive.
As a student age 12, I know all to well what dangers lie in the streets and in the communities that we live in. I live in an area that according to Megan's Law has high a concentration of child predators. In fact I attend a school that has had two young ladies go missing. Though many speculate that the girls went willingly or they ran
away the thought still does not set well with me. I can honestly say that I can sleep better at night knowing that sick, predatory criminals are and will continue to be put behind bars due to the Three Strikes Law.
As a young person in the prime of my life I cannot fathom how another human can RAPE, STRANGLE,KIDNAP, or MURDER another human being. I believe that a person who commits a crime listed under the California Penal Code 667 section (a)(1) which states: In compliance with subdivision(b) of section 1385, any person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted of a serious felony in this state or of any offense committed in another jurisdiction which includes all the elements of any serious felony, shall receive, in addition to the sentence imposed by the court for the present offense, a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction on charges brought and tried separately. The terms of the present offense and each enhancement shall run consecutively.
I believe that the crimes that fall under this law will not only keep me and society at large safe it will also insure that future generations are given the opportunity to grow and thrive in a healthy, and safe society. I whole hearted believe in this law.
We are all here today to hear arguments in favor of and against the Three Strikes' Law. I would like to begin with saying that I am in favor of the Three Strikes Law. The genesis for the Three Strikes Law was the 1993 kidnapping, rape, torture and murder of twelve-year-old Polly Klaas. Richard Allen Davis, the perpetrator of the crime, was caught and ultimately convicted. Davis had a long criminal history (robbery, burglary, assault, kidnapping) and was on parole when he kidnapped Polly. Had he been imprisoned for life after his third felony, Polly would still be alive.
As a student age 12, I know all to well what dangers lie in the streets and in the communities that we live in. I live in an area that according to Megan's Law has high a concentration of child predators. In fact I attend a school that has had two young ladies go missing. Though many speculate that the girls went willingly or they ran
away the thought still does not set well with me. I can honestly say that I can sleep better at night knowing that sick, predatory criminals are and will continue to be put behind bars due to the Three Strikes Law.
As a young person in the prime of my life I cannot fathom how another human can RAPE, STRANGLE,KIDNAP, or MURDER another human being. I believe that a person who commits a crime listed under the California Penal Code 667 section (a)(1) which states: In compliance with subdivision(b) of section 1385, any person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted of a serious felony in this state or of any offense committed in another jurisdiction which includes all the elements of any serious felony, shall receive, in addition to the sentence imposed by the court for the present offense, a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction on charges brought and tried separately. The terms of the present offense and each enhancement shall run consecutively.
I believe that the crimes that fall under this law will not only keep me and society at large safe it will also insure that future generations are given the opportunity to grow and thrive in a healthy, and safe society. I whole hearted believe in this law.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Closing Argument
Today, the U.S. has the dubious distinction of leading the
industrialized world in per capita prison population, with more than
one million men and women behind bars. The typical inmate in our
prisons is minority, male, young and uneducated. More than 40
percent of inmates are illiterate; one-third were unemployed when
arrested. This profile should tell us something important about the
link between crime and lack of opportunity, between crime and lack of
hope.
Only when we begin to deal with the conditions that cause so many of
our young people to turn to crime and violence will we begin to
realize a less crime ridden society.
industrialized world in per capita prison population, with more than
one million men and women behind bars. The typical inmate in our
prisons is minority, male, young and uneducated. More than 40
percent of inmates are illiterate; one-third were unemployed when
arrested. This profile should tell us something important about the
link between crime and lack of opportunity, between crime and lack of
hope.
Only when we begin to deal with the conditions that cause so many of
our young people to turn to crime and violence will we begin to
realize a less crime ridden society.
10 reasons to oppose the three strikes law
1. "3 Strikes" Is An Old Law Dressed Up In New Clothes
Although its supporters act as if it is something new, "3 Strikes" is
really just a variation on an old theme. States have had habitual
offender laws and recidivist statutes for years. All of these laws
impose stiff penalties, up to and including life s entences, on
repeat offenders. The 1987 Federal Sentencing Guidelines and
mandatory minimum sentencing laws in most states are also very tough
on repeaters. The government may be justified in punishing a repeat
offender more severely than a first offender, but "3 Strikes" laws
are overkill.
2. "3 Strikes" Laws Won't Deter Most Violent Crimes
Its supporters claim that "3 Strikes" laws will have a deterrent
effect on violent crime. But these laws will probably not stop many
criminals from committing violent acts. For one thing, most violent
crimes are not premeditated. They are committed in anger, in the
heat of passion or under the influence of alcohol. The prospect of a
life s entence is not going to stop people who are acting
impulsively, without thought to the likely consequences of their
actions.
Another reason why repeat offenders do not consider the penalties
they face before acting is because they do not anticipate being c
aught, and they are right. According to the American Bar
Association, out of the approximately 34 million serious crimes
committed each year in the U.S., only 3 million result in arrests.
3. "3 Strikes" Laws Could Lead To An Increase In Violence
Many law enforcement professionals oppose the "3 Strikes" law out of
fear such laws would spur a dramatic increase in violence against
police, corrections officers and the public. A criminal facing the
prospect of a mandatory life sentence will be far more likely to
resist arrest, to kill witnesses or to attempt a prison escape. Dave
Paul, a corrections officer from Milwaukee, Oregon, wrote in a
newspaper article: "Imagine a law enforcement officer trying to
arrest a twice-convicted felon who has nothing to lose by using any
means necessary to escape. Expect assaults on police and
correctional officers to rise precipitously." (Portland Oregonian,
3/94). Ironically, these laws may cause more, not less, loss of
life.
4. "3 Strikes" Laws Will Clog The Courts
The criminal courts already suffer from serious backlogs. The
extraordinarily high arrest rates resulting from the "war on drugs"
have placed enormous burdens on prosecutors, defense lawyers and
judges, whose caseloads have grown exponentially over the past
decade. "Three strikes" laws will make a bad situation even worse.
Faced with a mandatory life sentence, repeat offenders will demand
costly and time-consuming trials rather than submit to plea
bargaining. Normal felonies resolved by a plea bargain cost $600 to
defend, while a full blown criminal trial costs as much as $50,000.
Since most of the defendants will be indigent and require public
defenders, the expense of their defense will be borne by taxpayers.
5. "3 Strikes" Laws Will Take All Sentencing Discretion Away From
Judges
The "3 Strikes" proposals differ from most habitual offender laws in
that they make life sentences without parole mandatory. Thus, they
tie the hands of judges who have traditionally been responsible for
weighing both mitigating and aggravating circumstances before
imposing sentence. Judicial discretion in sentencing, which is
admired all over the world for treating people as individuals, is one
of the hallmarks of our justice system. But the rigid formula
imposed by "3 Strikes" renders the role of sentencing judges almost
superfluous.
Eliminating the possibility of parole ignores the fact that even the
most incorrigible offenders can be transformed while in prison.
Countless examples are on record of convicts who have reformed
themselves through study, good works, religious conversion or other
efforts during years spent behind bars. Such people ought deserve a
second chance that "3 Strikes" laws make impossible.
6. The Cost of Imprisoning 3-Time Losers For Life Will Be
Prohibitively High
The passage of "3 Strikes" laws will lead to a significant increase
in the nation's already swollen prison population, at enormous cost
to taxpayers. Today, it costs about $20,000 per year to confine a
young, physically fit offender. But "3 Strikes" laws would create a
huge, geriatric prison population that would be far more expensive to
care for. The estimated cost of maintaining an older prisoner is
three times that required for a younger prisoner -- about $60,000 per
year.
The cost might be worth it if older prisoners represented a danger to
society. But experts tell us that age is the most powerful crime
reducer. Most crimes are committed by men between the ages of 15 and
24. Only one percent of all serious crimes are committed by people
over age 60.
7. "3 Strikes" Will Have a Disproportionate Impact On Minority
Offenders
Racial bias in the criminal justice system is rampant. African
American men, in particular, are overrepresented in all criminal
justice statistics: arrests, victimizations, incarceration and
executions.
This imbalance is largely the result of the "war on drugs."
Although studies show that drug use among blacks and whites is
comparable, many more blacks than whites are arrested on drug
charges. Why? because the police find it easier to concentrate their
forces in inner city neighborhoods, where drug dealing tends to take
place on the streets, than to mount more costly and demanding
investigations in the suburbs, where drug dealing generally occurs
behind closed doors. Today, one in four young black men is are under
some form of criminal sanction, be it incarceration, probation or
parole.
Because many of these laws include drug offenses as prior "strikes,"
more black than white offenders will be subject to life sentences
under a "3 Strikes" law.
8. "3 Strikes" Laws Will Impose Life Sentences on Offenders Whose
Crimes Don't Warrant Such Harsh Punishment
Although "3 Strikes" sponsors claim that their purpose is to protect
society from only the most dangerous felons, many of the "3 Strikes"
proposals encompass a broad range of criminal conduct, from rape to
minor assaults. In an open letter to the Washington State voters,
more than 20 current and former prosecutors urged the public to vote
against the "3 Strikes" proposal. To explain why they opposed the
law's passage, they described the following scenario:
"An 18-year old high school senior pushes a classmate down to steal
his Michael Jordan $150 sneakers -- Strike One; he gets out of jail
and shoplifts a jacket from the Bon Marche, pushing aside the clerk
as he runs out of the store -- Strik e Two; he gets out of jail,
straightens out, and nine years later gets in a fight in a bar and
intentionally hits someone, breaking his nose -- criminal behavior,
to be sure, but hardly the crime of the century, yet it is Strike
Three. He is sent to prison for the rest of his life."
9. Let the Punishment Fit the Crime -- A Constitutional Principle
Under our system of criminal justice, the punishment must fit the
crime. Individuals should not be executed for burglarizing a house
nor incarcerated for life for committing relatively minor offenses,
even when they commit several of them. This principle, known as
"proportionality," is expressed in the Eighth Amendment to the Bill
of Rights:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Many of the "3 Strikes" proposals depart sharply from the
proportionality rule by failing to take into consideration the
gravity of the offense. Pennsylvania's proposed law treats
prostitution and burglary as "strikes" for purposes of imposing a
life sentence without parole. Several California proposals provide
that the first two felonies must be "violent," but that the third
offense can be any felony, even a non-violent crime like petty theft.
Such laws offend our constitutional traditions.
10. "3 Strikes" Laws Are Not A Serious Response To Crime
The "3 Strikes" proposals are based on the mistaken belief that
focusing on an offender after the crime has been committed, which
harsh sentencing schemes do, will lead to a reduction in the crime
rate. But if 34 million serious crimes are committed each year in
the U.S., and only 3 million result in arrest, something must be done
to prevent those crimes from happening in the first place.
Although its supporters act as if it is something new, "3 Strikes" is
really just a variation on an old theme. States have had habitual
offender laws and recidivist statutes for years. All of these laws
impose stiff penalties, up to and including life s entences, on
repeat offenders. The 1987 Federal Sentencing Guidelines and
mandatory minimum sentencing laws in most states are also very tough
on repeaters. The government may be justified in punishing a repeat
offender more severely than a first offender, but "3 Strikes" laws
are overkill.
2. "3 Strikes" Laws Won't Deter Most Violent Crimes
Its supporters claim that "3 Strikes" laws will have a deterrent
effect on violent crime. But these laws will probably not stop many
criminals from committing violent acts. For one thing, most violent
crimes are not premeditated. They are committed in anger, in the
heat of passion or under the influence of alcohol. The prospect of a
life s entence is not going to stop people who are acting
impulsively, without thought to the likely consequences of their
actions.
Another reason why repeat offenders do not consider the penalties
they face before acting is because they do not anticipate being c
aught, and they are right. According to the American Bar
Association, out of the approximately 34 million serious crimes
committed each year in the U.S., only 3 million result in arrests.
3. "3 Strikes" Laws Could Lead To An Increase In Violence
Many law enforcement professionals oppose the "3 Strikes" law out of
fear such laws would spur a dramatic increase in violence against
police, corrections officers and the public. A criminal facing the
prospect of a mandatory life sentence will be far more likely to
resist arrest, to kill witnesses or to attempt a prison escape. Dave
Paul, a corrections officer from Milwaukee, Oregon, wrote in a
newspaper article: "Imagine a law enforcement officer trying to
arrest a twice-convicted felon who has nothing to lose by using any
means necessary to escape. Expect assaults on police and
correctional officers to rise precipitously." (Portland Oregonian,
3/94). Ironically, these laws may cause more, not less, loss of
life.
4. "3 Strikes" Laws Will Clog The Courts
The criminal courts already suffer from serious backlogs. The
extraordinarily high arrest rates resulting from the "war on drugs"
have placed enormous burdens on prosecutors, defense lawyers and
judges, whose caseloads have grown exponentially over the past
decade. "Three strikes" laws will make a bad situation even worse.
Faced with a mandatory life sentence, repeat offenders will demand
costly and time-consuming trials rather than submit to plea
bargaining. Normal felonies resolved by a plea bargain cost $600 to
defend, while a full blown criminal trial costs as much as $50,000.
Since most of the defendants will be indigent and require public
defenders, the expense of their defense will be borne by taxpayers.
5. "3 Strikes" Laws Will Take All Sentencing Discretion Away From
Judges
The "3 Strikes" proposals differ from most habitual offender laws in
that they make life sentences without parole mandatory. Thus, they
tie the hands of judges who have traditionally been responsible for
weighing both mitigating and aggravating circumstances before
imposing sentence. Judicial discretion in sentencing, which is
admired all over the world for treating people as individuals, is one
of the hallmarks of our justice system. But the rigid formula
imposed by "3 Strikes" renders the role of sentencing judges almost
superfluous.
Eliminating the possibility of parole ignores the fact that even the
most incorrigible offenders can be transformed while in prison.
Countless examples are on record of convicts who have reformed
themselves through study, good works, religious conversion or other
efforts during years spent behind bars. Such people ought deserve a
second chance that "3 Strikes" laws make impossible.
6. The Cost of Imprisoning 3-Time Losers For Life Will Be
Prohibitively High
The passage of "3 Strikes" laws will lead to a significant increase
in the nation's already swollen prison population, at enormous cost
to taxpayers. Today, it costs about $20,000 per year to confine a
young, physically fit offender. But "3 Strikes" laws would create a
huge, geriatric prison population that would be far more expensive to
care for. The estimated cost of maintaining an older prisoner is
three times that required for a younger prisoner -- about $60,000 per
year.
The cost might be worth it if older prisoners represented a danger to
society. But experts tell us that age is the most powerful crime
reducer. Most crimes are committed by men between the ages of 15 and
24. Only one percent of all serious crimes are committed by people
over age 60.
7. "3 Strikes" Will Have a Disproportionate Impact On Minority
Offenders
Racial bias in the criminal justice system is rampant. African
American men, in particular, are overrepresented in all criminal
justice statistics: arrests, victimizations, incarceration and
executions.
This imbalance is largely the result of the "war on drugs."
Although studies show that drug use among blacks and whites is
comparable, many more blacks than whites are arrested on drug
charges. Why? because the police find it easier to concentrate their
forces in inner city neighborhoods, where drug dealing tends to take
place on the streets, than to mount more costly and demanding
investigations in the suburbs, where drug dealing generally occurs
behind closed doors. Today, one in four young black men is are under
some form of criminal sanction, be it incarceration, probation or
parole.
Because many of these laws include drug offenses as prior "strikes,"
more black than white offenders will be subject to life sentences
under a "3 Strikes" law.
8. "3 Strikes" Laws Will Impose Life Sentences on Offenders Whose
Crimes Don't Warrant Such Harsh Punishment
Although "3 Strikes" sponsors claim that their purpose is to protect
society from only the most dangerous felons, many of the "3 Strikes"
proposals encompass a broad range of criminal conduct, from rape to
minor assaults. In an open letter to the Washington State voters,
more than 20 current and former prosecutors urged the public to vote
against the "3 Strikes" proposal. To explain why they opposed the
law's passage, they described the following scenario:
"An 18-year old high school senior pushes a classmate down to steal
his Michael Jordan $150 sneakers -- Strike One; he gets out of jail
and shoplifts a jacket from the Bon Marche, pushing aside the clerk
as he runs out of the store -- Strik e Two; he gets out of jail,
straightens out, and nine years later gets in a fight in a bar and
intentionally hits someone, breaking his nose -- criminal behavior,
to be sure, but hardly the crime of the century, yet it is Strike
Three. He is sent to prison for the rest of his life."
9. Let the Punishment Fit the Crime -- A Constitutional Principle
Under our system of criminal justice, the punishment must fit the
crime. Individuals should not be executed for burglarizing a house
nor incarcerated for life for committing relatively minor offenses,
even when they commit several of them. This principle, known as
"proportionality," is expressed in the Eighth Amendment to the Bill
of Rights:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Many of the "3 Strikes" proposals depart sharply from the
proportionality rule by failing to take into consideration the
gravity of the offense. Pennsylvania's proposed law treats
prostitution and burglary as "strikes" for purposes of imposing a
life sentence without parole. Several California proposals provide
that the first two felonies must be "violent," but that the third
offense can be any felony, even a non-violent crime like petty theft.
Such laws offend our constitutional traditions.
10. "3 Strikes" Laws Are Not A Serious Response To Crime
The "3 Strikes" proposals are based on the mistaken belief that
focusing on an offender after the crime has been committed, which
harsh sentencing schemes do, will lead to a reduction in the crime
rate. But if 34 million serious crimes are committed each year in
the U.S., and only 3 million result in arrest, something must be done
to prevent those crimes from happening in the first place.
Three Strikes Law
Home | Articles | Book Page | Links | Mike's Corner | Search | Studies | Contact Us
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 667 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
667. (a) (1) In compliance with subdivision (b) of Section 1385, any person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted of a serious felony in this state or of any offense committed in another jurisdiction which includes all of the elements of any serious felony, shall receive, in addition to the sentence imposed by the court for the present offense, a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction on charges brought and tried separately. The terms of the present offense and each enhancement shall run consecutively.
(2) This subdivision shall not be applied when the punishment imposed under other provisions of law would result in a longer term of imprisonment. There is no requirement of prior incarceration or commitment for this subdivision to apply.
(3) The Legislature may increase the length of the enhancement of sentence provided in this subdivision by a statute passed by majority vote of each house thereof.
(4) As used in this subdivision, "serious felony" means a serious felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.
(5) This subdivision shall not apply to a person convicted of selling, furnishing, administering, or giving, or offering to sell, furnish, administer, or give to a minor any methamphetamine-related drug or any precursors of methamphetamine unless the prior conviction was for a serious felony described in subparagraph (24) of subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted of serious and/or violent felony offenses.
(c) Notwithstanding any other law, if a defendant has been convicted of a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d), the court shall adhere to each of the following:
(1) There shall not be an aggregate term limitation for purposes of consecutive sentencing for any subsequent felony conviction.
(2) Probation for the current offense shall not be granted, nor shall execution or imposition of the sentence be suspended for any prior offense.
(3) The length of time between the prior felony conviction and the current felony conviction shall not affect the imposition of sentence.
(4) There shall not be a commitment to any other facility other than the state prison. Diversion shall not be granted nor shall the defendant be eligible for commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 3050) of Chapter 1 of Division 3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(5) The total amount of credits awarded pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of Title 1 of Part 3 shall not exceed one-fifth of the total term of imprisonment imposed and shall not accrue until the defendant is physically placed in the state prison.
(6) If there is a current conviction for more than one felony count not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts, the court shall sentence the defendant consecutively on each count pursuant to subdivision(e).
(7) If there is a current conviction for more than one serious or violent felony as described in paragraph (6), the court shall impose the sentence for each conviction consecutive to the sentence for any other conviction for which the defendant may be consecutively sentenced in the manner prescribed by law.
(8) Any sentence imposed pursuant to subdivision (e) will be imposed consecutive to any other sentence which the defendant is already serving, unless otherwise provided by law.
(d) Notwithstanding any other law and for the purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, a prior conviction of a felony shall be defined as:
(1) Any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 as a violent felony or any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 as a serious felony in this state. The determination of whether a prior conviction is a prior felony conviction for purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, shall be made upon the date of that prior conviction and is not affected by the sentence imposed unless the sentence automatically, upon the initial sentencing, converts the felony to a misdemeanor. None of the following dispositions shall affect the determination that a prior conviction is a prior felony for purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive:
(A) The suspension of imposition of judgment or sentence.
(B) The stay of execution of sentence.
(C) The commitment to the State Department of Health Services as a mentally disordered sex offender following a conviction of a felony.
(D) The commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center or any other facility whose function is rehabilitative diversion from the state prison.
(2) A conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that, if committed in California, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison. A prior conviction of a particular felony shall include a conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that includes all of the elements of the particular felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.
(3) A prior juvenile adjudication shall constitute a prior felony conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement if:
(A) The juvenile was 16 years of age or older at the time he or she committed the prior offense.
(B) The prior offense is listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code or described in paragraph (1) or (2) as a felony.
(C) The juvenile was found to be a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law.
(D) The juvenile was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court within the meaning of Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code because the person committed an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(e) For purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, and in addition to any other enhancement or punishment provisions which may apply, the following shall apply where a defendant has a prior felony conviction:
(1) If a defendant has one prior felony conviction that has been pled and proved, the determinate term or minimum term for an indeterminate term shall be twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current felony conviction.
(2) (A) If a defendant has two or more prior felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d) that have been pled and proved, the term for the current felony conviction shall be an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of the indeterminate sentence calculated as the greater of:
(i) Three times the term otherwise provided as punishment for each current felony conviction subsequent to the two or more prior felony convictions.
(ii) Imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years.
(iii) The term determined by the court pursuant to Section 1170 for the underlying conviction, including any enhancement applicable under Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 1170) of Title 7 of Part 2, or any period prescribed by Section 190 or 3046.
(B) The indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) shall be served consecutive to any other term of imprisonment for which a consecutive term may be imposed by law. Any other term imposed subsequent to any indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) shall not be merged therein but shall commence at the time the person would otherwise have been released from prison.
(f) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, shall be applied in every case in which a defendant has a prior felony conviction as defined in subdivision (d). The prosecuting attorney shall plead and prove each prior felony conviction except as provided in paragraph(2).
(2) The prosecuting attorney may move to dismiss or strike a prior felony conviction allegation in the furtherance of justice pursuant to Section 1385, or if there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior conviction. If upon the satisfaction of the court that there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior felony conviction, the court may dismiss or strike the allegation.
(g) Prior felony convictions shall not be used in plea bargaining as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1192.7. The prosecution shall plead and prove all known prior felony convictions and shall not enter into any agreement to strike or seek the dismissal of any prior felony conviction allegation except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f).
(h) All references to existing statutes in subdivisions (c) to (g), inclusive, are to statutes as they existed on June 30, 1993.
(i) If any provision of subdivisions (b) to (h), inclusive, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of those subdivisions which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of those subdivisions are severable.
(j) The provisions of this section shall not be amended by the Legislature except by statute passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors.
SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted of serious or violent felony offenses, and to protect the public from the imminent threat posed by those repeat felony offenders, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
View the list of crimes
Support the Badge
return to the Home Page...
Return to Home Page
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 667 of the Penal Code is amended to read:
667. (a) (1) In compliance with subdivision (b) of Section 1385, any person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted of a serious felony in this state or of any offense committed in another jurisdiction which includes all of the elements of any serious felony, shall receive, in addition to the sentence imposed by the court for the present offense, a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction on charges brought and tried separately. The terms of the present offense and each enhancement shall run consecutively.
(2) This subdivision shall not be applied when the punishment imposed under other provisions of law would result in a longer term of imprisonment. There is no requirement of prior incarceration or commitment for this subdivision to apply.
(3) The Legislature may increase the length of the enhancement of sentence provided in this subdivision by a statute passed by majority vote of each house thereof.
(4) As used in this subdivision, "serious felony" means a serious felony listed in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.
(5) This subdivision shall not apply to a person convicted of selling, furnishing, administering, or giving, or offering to sell, furnish, administer, or give to a minor any methamphetamine-related drug or any precursors of methamphetamine unless the prior conviction was for a serious felony described in subparagraph (24) of subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted of serious and/or violent felony offenses.
(c) Notwithstanding any other law, if a defendant has been convicted of a felony and it has been pled and proved that the defendant has one or more prior felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d), the court shall adhere to each of the following:
(1) There shall not be an aggregate term limitation for purposes of consecutive sentencing for any subsequent felony conviction.
(2) Probation for the current offense shall not be granted, nor shall execution or imposition of the sentence be suspended for any prior offense.
(3) The length of time between the prior felony conviction and the current felony conviction shall not affect the imposition of sentence.
(4) There shall not be a commitment to any other facility other than the state prison. Diversion shall not be granted nor shall the defendant be eligible for commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center as provided in Article 2 (commencing with Section 3050) of Chapter 1 of Division 3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(5) The total amount of credits awarded pursuant to Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 2930) of Chapter 7 of Title 1 of Part 3 shall not exceed one-fifth of the total term of imprisonment imposed and shall not accrue until the defendant is physically placed in the state prison.
(6) If there is a current conviction for more than one felony count not committed on the same occasion, and not arising from the same set of operative facts, the court shall sentence the defendant consecutively on each count pursuant to subdivision(e).
(7) If there is a current conviction for more than one serious or violent felony as described in paragraph (6), the court shall impose the sentence for each conviction consecutive to the sentence for any other conviction for which the defendant may be consecutively sentenced in the manner prescribed by law.
(8) Any sentence imposed pursuant to subdivision (e) will be imposed consecutive to any other sentence which the defendant is already serving, unless otherwise provided by law.
(d) Notwithstanding any other law and for the purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, a prior conviction of a felony shall be defined as:
(1) Any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 as a violent felony or any offense defined in subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7 as a serious felony in this state. The determination of whether a prior conviction is a prior felony conviction for purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, shall be made upon the date of that prior conviction and is not affected by the sentence imposed unless the sentence automatically, upon the initial sentencing, converts the felony to a misdemeanor. None of the following dispositions shall affect the determination that a prior conviction is a prior felony for purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive:
(A) The suspension of imposition of judgment or sentence.
(B) The stay of execution of sentence.
(C) The commitment to the State Department of Health Services as a mentally disordered sex offender following a conviction of a felony.
(D) The commitment to the California Rehabilitation Center or any other facility whose function is rehabilitative diversion from the state prison.
(2) A conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that, if committed in California, is punishable by imprisonment in the state prison. A prior conviction of a particular felony shall include a conviction in another jurisdiction for an offense that includes all of the elements of the particular felony as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 667.5 or subdivision (c) of Section 1192.7.
(3) A prior juvenile adjudication shall constitute a prior felony conviction for purposes of sentence enhancement if:
(A) The juvenile was 16 years of age or older at the time he or she committed the prior offense.
(B) The prior offense is listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code or described in paragraph (1) or (2) as a felony.
(C) The juvenile was found to be a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the juvenile court law.
(D) The juvenile was adjudged a ward of the juvenile court within the meaning of Section 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Code because the person committed an offense listed in subdivision (b) of Section 707 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
(e) For purposes of subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, and in addition to any other enhancement or punishment provisions which may apply, the following shall apply where a defendant has a prior felony conviction:
(1) If a defendant has one prior felony conviction that has been pled and proved, the determinate term or minimum term for an indeterminate term shall be twice the term otherwise provided as punishment for the current felony conviction.
(2) (A) If a defendant has two or more prior felony convictions as defined in subdivision (d) that have been pled and proved, the term for the current felony conviction shall be an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term of the indeterminate sentence calculated as the greater of:
(i) Three times the term otherwise provided as punishment for each current felony conviction subsequent to the two or more prior felony convictions.
(ii) Imprisonment in the state prison for 25 years.
(iii) The term determined by the court pursuant to Section 1170 for the underlying conviction, including any enhancement applicable under Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 1170) of Title 7 of Part 2, or any period prescribed by Section 190 or 3046.
(B) The indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) shall be served consecutive to any other term of imprisonment for which a consecutive term may be imposed by law. Any other term imposed subsequent to any indeterminate term described in subparagraph (A) shall not be merged therein but shall commence at the time the person would otherwise have been released from prison.
(f) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, subdivisions (b) to (i), inclusive, shall be applied in every case in which a defendant has a prior felony conviction as defined in subdivision (d). The prosecuting attorney shall plead and prove each prior felony conviction except as provided in paragraph(2).
(2) The prosecuting attorney may move to dismiss or strike a prior felony conviction allegation in the furtherance of justice pursuant to Section 1385, or if there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior conviction. If upon the satisfaction of the court that there is insufficient evidence to prove the prior felony conviction, the court may dismiss or strike the allegation.
(g) Prior felony convictions shall not be used in plea bargaining as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1192.7. The prosecution shall plead and prove all known prior felony convictions and shall not enter into any agreement to strike or seek the dismissal of any prior felony conviction allegation except as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f).
(h) All references to existing statutes in subdivisions (c) to (g), inclusive, are to statutes as they existed on June 30, 1993.
(i) If any provision of subdivisions (b) to (h), inclusive, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of those subdivisions which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of those subdivisions are severable.
(j) The provisions of this section shall not be amended by the Legislature except by statute passed in each house by rollcall vote entered in the journal, two-thirds of the membership concurring, or by a statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors.
SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
In order to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have been previously convicted of serious or violent felony offenses, and to protect the public from the imminent threat posed by those repeat felony offenders, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
View the list of crimes
Support the Badge
return to the Home Page...
Return to Home Page
Violent and serious felonies according to California statutes
Home | Articles | Book Page | Links | Mike's Corner | Search | Studies | Contact Us
Violent and serious felonies according to California statutes:
Violent felonies
* Murder or manslaughter.
* Mayhem.
* Rape by force, violence, duress, menace or fear of immediate bodily injury on the victim or another person.
* Oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace or fear of immediate bodily injury on the victim or another person.
* Lewd act on a child.
* Any felony punishable by death or life sentence.
* Any felony resulting in great bodily injury or in which a firearm was used.
* Robbery of an inhabited dwelling, vessel or trailer coach in which a deadly or dangerous weapon was used.
* Arson that causes great bodily injury.
* Penetration by a foreign object.
* Attempted murder.
* Explosion with intent to commit murder.
* Out-of-state kidnapping transported to California.
* Continuous sexual abuse of a child.
Serious felonies
* Murder or involuntary manslaughter.
* Mayhem.
* Sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace or fear of immediate bodily injury on the victim or another person.
* Oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace or fear of immediate bodily injury on the victim or another person.
* Lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years.
* Any felony pubishable by death or imprisonment for life.
* Any other felony in which the defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person or personally uses a firearm.
* Attempted murder.
* Assault with intent to commit rape or robbery.
* Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer.
* Assault by a life prisoner on a non-inmate.
* Assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate.
* Arson.
* Exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure.
* Exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing great bodily injury or mayhem.
* Exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder.
* Burglary of an inhabited dwelling, house or trailer coach as defined by the Vehicle Code or inhabited portion of any other building.
* Robbery or bank robbery.
* Kidnapping.
* Holding of a hostage by a person confined in a state prison.
* Attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or life imprisonment.
* Any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon selling, furnishing, administering, giving or offering to sell, furnish administer or give to a minor, heroin, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), a methamphetamine-related drug, or a presursor of mehtamphetamine.
* Any violation of subdivision (a) of Section 289 where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person.
* Grand theft involving a firearm.
* Any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an assault.
* Continuous sexual abuse of a child.
View the text of the Three Strikes law
Support the Badge
return to the Home Page...
Return to Home Page
Violent and serious felonies according to California statutes:
Violent felonies
* Murder or manslaughter.
* Mayhem.
* Rape by force, violence, duress, menace or fear of immediate bodily injury on the victim or another person.
* Oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace or fear of immediate bodily injury on the victim or another person.
* Lewd act on a child.
* Any felony punishable by death or life sentence.
* Any felony resulting in great bodily injury or in which a firearm was used.
* Robbery of an inhabited dwelling, vessel or trailer coach in which a deadly or dangerous weapon was used.
* Arson that causes great bodily injury.
* Penetration by a foreign object.
* Attempted murder.
* Explosion with intent to commit murder.
* Out-of-state kidnapping transported to California.
* Continuous sexual abuse of a child.
Serious felonies
* Murder or involuntary manslaughter.
* Mayhem.
* Sodomy by force, violence, duress, menace or fear of immediate bodily injury on the victim or another person.
* Oral copulation by force, violence, duress, menace or fear of immediate bodily injury on the victim or another person.
* Lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years.
* Any felony pubishable by death or imprisonment for life.
* Any other felony in which the defendant personally inflicts great bodily injury on any person or personally uses a firearm.
* Attempted murder.
* Assault with intent to commit rape or robbery.
* Assault with a deadly weapon or instrument on a peace officer.
* Assault by a life prisoner on a non-inmate.
* Assault with a deadly weapon by an inmate.
* Arson.
* Exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to injure.
* Exploding a destructive device or any explosive causing great bodily injury or mayhem.
* Exploding a destructive device or any explosive with intent to murder.
* Burglary of an inhabited dwelling, house or trailer coach as defined by the Vehicle Code or inhabited portion of any other building.
* Robbery or bank robbery.
* Kidnapping.
* Holding of a hostage by a person confined in a state prison.
* Attempt to commit a felony punishable by death or life imprisonment.
* Any felony in which the defendant personally used a dangerous or deadly weapon selling, furnishing, administering, giving or offering to sell, furnish administer or give to a minor, heroin, cocaine, phencyclidine (PCP), a methamphetamine-related drug, or a presursor of mehtamphetamine.
* Any violation of subdivision (a) of Section 289 where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the victim or another person.
* Grand theft involving a firearm.
* Any attempt to commit a crime listed in this subdivision other than an assault.
* Continuous sexual abuse of a child.
View the text of the Three Strikes law
Support the Badge
return to the Home Page...
Return to Home Page
Opening Argument
Ladies and gentlemen we are gathered here today to debate about a law that was birthed in 1994 after a very tragic event took place. We will hear from the opposing side that this law was the best law ever created, we will further hear that since the creation of the Three Strike's Law we have in fact cured society of predators like the one that prayed on little Polly Clasp.
Ladies and Gentlemen I want you to know that a view point such as theirs could not be further from the truth. I want everyone of your in this room to close your eyes and to imagine that your daughter is Polly Clasp and you have just found out that your daughter is no longer here on earth because a violent sick man killed her.
I want you to look deep and tell me are there any laws currently set in place to punish criminals such as the one convicted of killing Polly Clasp. I want you to also think about another questions. Without the Three Strikes Law would Polly Clasp killer if caught have gone FREE? If not why not?
We live in the United States Of America a place where we as Americans understand that if we commit a crime we will be punished for that said crime. We have to understand that without the Three Strikes Law criminals were not getting away with heinous crimes. With our laws criminal pay for their crimes. So why is there a need to push and use a law that in essence is not needed and in all fairness is a waste of Tax Payers money?
Ladies and Gentlemen I want you to know that a view point such as theirs could not be further from the truth. I want everyone of your in this room to close your eyes and to imagine that your daughter is Polly Clasp and you have just found out that your daughter is no longer here on earth because a violent sick man killed her.
I want you to look deep and tell me are there any laws currently set in place to punish criminals such as the one convicted of killing Polly Clasp. I want you to also think about another questions. Without the Three Strikes Law would Polly Clasp killer if caught have gone FREE? If not why not?
We live in the United States Of America a place where we as Americans understand that if we commit a crime we will be punished for that said crime. We have to understand that without the Three Strikes Law criminals were not getting away with heinous crimes. With our laws criminal pay for their crimes. So why is there a need to push and use a law that in essence is not needed and in all fairness is a waste of Tax Payers money?
Monday, May 26, 2008
An example of a Closing Argument
CLOSING ARGUMENT OF JOHNNIE COCHRAN (EXCERPTS)
.
JOHNNIE COCHRAN’S CLOSING ARGUMENT
******
MR. COCHRAN: The Defendant, Mr. Orenthal James Simpson, is now afforded an opportunity to argue the case, if you will, but I'm not going to argue with you, ladies and gentlemen. What I'm going to do is to try and discuss the reasonable inferences which I feel can be drawn from this evidence.
******
Ultimately, it's what you determine to be the facts is what's going to be important, and all of us can live with that. You are empowered to do justice. You are empowered to ensure that this great system of ours works. Listen for a moment, will you, please. One of my favorite people in history is the great Frederick Douglas. He said shortly after the slaves were freed, quote, "In a composite nation like ours as before the law, there should be no rich, no poor, no high, no low, no white, no black, but common country, common citizenship, equal rights and a common destiny." This marvelous statement was made more than 100 years ago. It's an ideal worth striving for and one that we still strive for. We haven't reached this goal yet, but certainly in this great country of ours, we're trying. With a jury such as this, we hope we can do that in this particular case.
******
I'd like to comment and to compliment Miss Clark and Mr. Darden on what I thought were fine arguments yesterday. I don't agree with much of what they said, but I listened intently, as I hope you'll do with me. And together, hopefully these discussions are going to be helpful to you in trying to arrive at a decision in this case where you don't compromise, where you don't do violence to your conscious (sic), but you do the right thing. And you are the ones who are empowered to determine what is the right thing. Let me ask each of you a question. Have you ever in your life been falsely accused of something? Have you ever been falsely accused? Ever had to sit there and take it and watch the proceedings and wait and wait and wait, all the while knowing that you didn't do it? All you could do during such a process is to really maintain your dignity; isn't that correct? Knowing that you were innocent, but maintaining your dignity and remembering always that all you're left with after a crisis is your conduct during. So that's another reason why we are proud to represent this man who's maintained his innocence and who has conducted himself with dignity throughout these proceedings. Now, last night, as I thought about the arguments of my colleagues, two words came to mind. And I want to--I asked my wife this morning to get the dictionary out and look up two words. The two words were "Speculative" and "Cynical." Let me see if I can get those words that she got for me.
******
And I want you to tell me what does it mean to speculate, what does it mean to be cynical, as I thought about my colleagues' arguments and their approach to this case and their view of this case. "Cynical" is described as contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives, gloomy distrustful view of life. And to speculate--to speculate, to engage in conjecture and to surmise or--is to take to be the truth on the basis of insufficient evidence. I mention those two definitions to you because I felt that much of what we heard yesterday and again this morning was mere speculation.
******
People see things that are totally cynical. Maybe that's their view of the world. Not everybody shares that view. Now, in this case--and this is a homicide case and a very, very, very serious case. And of course, it's important for us to understand that. It is a sad fact that in American society, a large number of people are murdered each year. Violence unfortunately has become a way of life in America. And so when this sort of tragedy does in fact happen, it becomes the business of the police to step up and step in and to take charge of the matter. A good efficient, competent, noncorrupt police department will carefully set about the business of investigating homicides. They won't rush to judgment. They won't be bound by an obsession to win at all costs. They will set about trying to apprehend the killer or killers and trying to protect the innocent from suspicion.
In this case, the victims' families had an absolute right to demand exactly just that in this case. But it was clear unfortunately that in this case, there was another agenda. From the very first orders issued by the LAPD so-called brass, they were more concerned with their own images, the publicity that might be generated from this case than they were in doing professional police work. That's why this case has become such a hallmark and that's why Mr. Simpson is the one on trial. But your verdict in this case will go far beyond the walls of Department 103 because your verdict talks about justice in America and it talks about the police and whether they're above the law and it looks at the police perhaps as though they haven't been looked at very recently. Remember, I told you this is not for the naive, the faint of heart or the timid. So it seems to us that the evidence shows that professional police work took a backseat right at the beginning. Untrained officers trampled--remember, I used the word in opening statement--they traipsed through the evidence.
******
Because of their bungling, they ignored the obvious clues. They didn't pick up paper at the scene with prints on it. Because of their vanity, they very soon pretended to solve this crime and we think implicated an innocent man, and they never, they never ever looked for anyone else. We think if they had done their job as we have done, Mr. Simpson would have been eliminated early on.
******
Now, at the outset, let's talk about this time line for the Defense. I said earlier that Mr. Darden did a good job in his argument, but one thing he tended to trip over and stumble over was when he started to talk about our case. He doesn't know our case like we know our case. It was interesting, wasn't it, because first he stood up and started talking about the time line being at 10:15. Then he said, well, they didn't prove anything, but, "Golly, well, it may have been as late as 10:30." That's interesting, isn't it? Never heard that before.
******
And so as we look then at the time line and the importance of this time line, I want you to remember these words. Like the defining moment in this trial, the day Mr. Darden asked Mr. Simpson to try on those gloves and the gloves didn't fit, remember these words; if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. And we are going to be talking about that throughout. So to summarize, if you take the witnesses that we presented who stand unimpeached, unimpeached, and if you are left with dogs starting to bark at 10:35 or 10:40, 10:40 let's say--and we know from the most qualified individuals, Henry Lee and Michael Baden, this was a struggle that took from five to 15 minutes. It's already 10:55. And remember, the thumps were at 10:40 or 10:45--O.J. Simpson could not be guilty. He is then entitled to an acquittal
******
And when you are back there deliberating on this case, you're never going to be ever able to reconcile this time line and the fact there's no blood back there and O.J. Simpson would run into an air conditioner on his own property and then under her scenario, he still has the knife and the clothes. But what does she tell you yesterday? Well, he still has the knife and he's in these bloody clothes and presumably in bloody shoes, and what does he do? He goes in the house. Now, thank heaven, Judge Ito took us on a jury view. You've seen this house. You've seen this carpet. If he went in that house with bloody shoes, with bloody clothes, with his bloody hands as they say, where's the blood on the doorknob, where's the blood on the light switch, where's the blood on the banister, where's the blood on the carpet? That's like almost white carpet going up those stairs. Where is all that blood trail they've been banting about in this mountain of evidence? You will see it's little more than a river or a stream. They don't have any mountain or ocean of evidence. It's not so because they say so. That's just rhetoric. We this afternoon are talking about the facts. And so it doesn't make any sense. It just doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
*******
And so she (Ms. Clark) talks about O.J. being very, very recognizable. She talks about O.J. Simpson getting dressed up to go commit these murders. Just before we break for our break, I was thinking--I was thinking last night about this case and their theory and how it didn't make any sense and how it didn't fit and how something is wrong. It occurred to me how they were going to come here, stand up here and tell you how O.J. Simpson was going to disguise himself. He was going to put on a knit cap and some dark clothes, and he was going to get in his white Bronco, this recognizable person, and go over and kill his wife. That's what they want you to believe. That's how silly their argument is. And I said to myself, maybe I can demonstrate this graphically. Let me show you something. This is a knit cap. Let me put this knit cap on (Indicating). You have seen me for a year. If I put this knit cap on, who am I? I'm still Johnnie Cochran with a knit cap. And if you looked at O.J. Simpson over there--and he has a rather large head--O.J. Simpson in a knit cap from two blocks away is still O.J. Simpson. It's no disguise. It's no disguise. It makes no sense. It doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
******
Consider everything that Mr. Simpson would have had to have done in a very short time under their timeline. He would have had to drive over to Bundy, as they described in this little limited time frame where there is not enough time, kill two athletic people in a struggle that takes five to fifteen minutes, walk slowly from the scene, return to the scene, supposedly looking for a missing hat and glove and poking around, go back to this alley a second time, drive more than five minutes to Rockingham where nobody hears him or sees him, either stop along the way to hide these bloody clothes and knives, et cetera, or take them in the house with you where they are still hoisted by their own petard because there is no blood, there is no trace, there is no nothing. So that is why the Prosecution has had to try and push back their timeline. Even to today they are still pushing it back because it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't fit.
******
As I started to say before, perhaps the single most defining moment in this trial is the day they thought they would conduct this experiment on these gloves. They had this big build-up with Mr. Rubin who had been out of the business for five, six, seven, eight years, he had been in marketing even when he was there, but they were going to try to demonstrate to you that these were the killer's gloves and these gloves would fit Mr. Simpson. You don't need any photographs to understand this. I suppose that vision is indelibly imprinted in each and every one of your minds of how Mr. Simpson walked over here and stood before you and you saw four simple words, "The gloves didn't fit." And all their strategy started changing after that. Rubin was called back here more than all their witnesses, four times altogether. Rubin testified more than the investigating officers in this case, because their case from that day forward was slipping away from them and they knew it and they could never ever recapture it. We may all live to be a hundred years old, and I hope we do, but you will always remember those gloves, when Darden asked him to try them on, didn't fit.
******
Consider the EAP b found under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails where they try to come in and tell you it is a degraded BA and a cross-examination. Again Blasier got Matheson to admit there was no specific support in any of the literature for a BA degraded into a B, and this was by all accounts a double-banded B. The reason they didn't want to pursue that, because she may have scratched somebody with a b type, but they never pursued those things. The second hat at Bundy. The Bundy location inside, when the Defense investigator finds this hat, nobody wanted to collect it. They refused in fact to collect it. When we in this trial, before you, discovered that evidence had been moved at Bundy and that a key piece of evidence, the piece of paper, had disappeared, they didn't do anything to find out about it that we know of. I am concerned about those kind of things.
******
So we heard last night and we are treated to this morning some very, very interesting observations by my learned colleague, Mr. Darden.
******
Now, this is interesting because Mr. Darden started off by saying, well, you know, we are going to put together this other piece, it is not really one of the elements of the crime of murder, motive, but we are going to talk to you about motive now. We are going to tell you and convince you about the motive in this case, and then he spent a long time trying to do that. As I say, he did a fine job and addressed the facts and conjured up a lot of emotion. You notice how at the end he kind of petered out of steam there, and I'm sure he got tired and he petered out because this fuse he kept talking about kept going out. It never blew up, never exploded. There was no triggering mechanism. There is nothing to lead to that. It was a nice analogy, almost like that baby analogy, the baby justice and the house of fire. You don't have to go through the house of fire. You have to keep yourself on the prize, the house of justice, a city called Justice, and that is what this is leading to, so this is what it is all about. The court--Mr. Darden looks up there, says, well, gee, judge, whatever limited purpose, but let's talk about the limited purpose for which all of his argument was about. When you talk about this evidence of other crimes, such evidence was received--excuse me, sir--and may be considered by you only for the limited purpose of determining if it tends to show the characteristic method or plan or scheme about identity or motive. For the limited purpose for which you may consider such evidence, you must weigh it in the same manner as you do all other evidence in the case. You are not permitted to consider such evidence for any other purpose. So this isn't about character assassination of O.J. Simpson, as you might think at first blush. This is about Mr. Darden trying to conjure up a motive for you. And at the outset let me say that no, none, not one little bit of domestic violence is tolerable between a man and a woman. O.J. Simpson is not proud of that 1989 incident. He is not proud of it. But you know what? He paid his debt to that and it went to court. He went through that program. And the one good thing, and no matter how long Darden talked, from 1989 to now there was never any physical violence between O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson
******
It is wonderful that we live in the age of videotape because it tells you about who O.J. Simpson. Cindy Garvey tells you how O.J. Simpson was. He was this mean dark brooding person at this concert, that he was going to kill his ex-wife because he didn't like his seats. Because he didn't like his seats or because he didn't invite her to dinner. That is how silly what they are talking about in this case as he tries to play out this drama. But let me show you, rather than talk--a picture is worth a thousand words, so let me show you this video. You watch this video for a moment and we will talk about it. This is for Chris Darden.
(At 4:19 P.M. a videotape was played.)
You will recognize some of the people in this videotape after awhile. Mr. Simpson kissing Denise Brown, Miss Juditha Brown, Mr. Louis Brown. Talking to a friend. That is his son Justin who he kisses, smiling and happily waving. Mr. Brown is happy. Laughing and falling down and laughing again, bending over laughing. You see that. You see that with your own eyes. You will have that back in this jury room. How does that comport with this tortured, twisted reasoning that he was angry in some kind of a jealous rage? Did he look like he was a jealous rage to you? Your eyes aren't lying to you when you see that. Thank heaven we have videotape. I didn't tell you about that in opening statement. Do you think that is pretty compelling? Thank heaven we have that. And we know in this city how important videotapes can be when people don't want to believe things even when they see on it videotapes and you saw that yourself.
******
And even after that video, like any proud papa, you know what O.J. Simpson did? Took a picture, a photograph with his daughter. Let's look at this photograph for a minute, if you want to see how he looks while he is in this murderous rage, while this fuse is going on that Darden talks about. Where is the fuse now, Mr. Darden? Where is the fuse? Look at that look on his face liked (sic) any proud papa. He is proud of that little girl and who wouldn't be proud of her
******
Then we know that at nine o'clock he talked to Christian Reichardt, his friend Dr. Christian Reichardt, and you saw Chris Reichardt come in here and talk to you. I thought he made a very, very, very good witness from the standpoint of what he had to say. He told you that O.J. Simpson sounded even happier than usual. He was more jovial, he got his life back together and he was moving on. Isn't that interesting? Isn't that an interesting way of looking at circumstantial evidence. Let me show you how we differ in this case. A doctor witness comes in and says O.J. Simpson is jovial at nine o'clock on June 12th. Pretty good evidence, wouldn't you say? I think you would love to have that. Anybody would in a case where you are supposedly in a murderous rage. Instead of Chris Darden standing here and saying, well, that is pretty tough evidence for us to overcome, he says O.J. Simpson was happy because he was going to kill his wife. Now, if you believe that, I suppose I might as well sit down now and I am probably wasting my time. I don't think any of you believe that. That is preposterous. It flies in the face of everything that is reasonable. You have these two reasonable hypotheses, his isn't reasonable, but assume it is reasonable, you would have to adopt this, that he is jovial, he is happy. They make a date for that next Wednesday and O.J. Simpson returns from back east. You remember that. That is the testimony. Mr. Darden tries to make a big thing of the fact, well, gee, you know, golly, was he depressed about the fact that they had broken up or they had finally broke up? He said, yeah, he had been down. He never said he was depressed. Said he was down or upset and who wouldn't be. Remember the last questions I asked. If you had just ended a 17-year relationship and it was over, you would feel down for a short period of time until you got your life on track. You wouldn't go kill your ex-wife, the mother of your children. O.J. Simpson didn't try to kill or didn't kill Nicole Brown Simpson when they got a divorce, when they went through whatever they went through when Faye Resnick moved in.
******
In this case in opening statement I showed you Bob Shapiro's foresight and wisdom. He had these photographs taken I think on June 15th. Instead of praising this lawyer who was interested in the truth, the Prosecution says, well, they went to Dr. Huisenga. That wasn't really his doctor. Isn't that preposterous. Dr. Huisenga, by all accounts, is a qualified doctor. He was the raiders team doctor. I suppose he is supposes qualified. This is Mr. O.J. Simpson's body as it appeared on June 15th. Wouldn't you expect to see a lot of bruises and marks on that body? You see his back. Some of these aren't very flattering, but this is not about flattery; this is about his life. Now, on his hands--there is some slight abrasions on his hands, but nothing consistent with a fight like this. You know it. I know it. We all know it. We will talk more about this, this so-called fishhook cut and where he got that. It will become very clear when we talk about demeanor where that came from. Miss Clark wants to try and confuse that, but that is very, very clear. So with regard to Mr. Simpson's physical condition, I don't want to just tell you to take my word, stand here and say, oh, yeah, he was in great shape on that day or he looked good or whatever. Fortunately we had photographs again, we had graphic evidence of this man's body. This man had not been in a life and death struggle for five to fifteen minutes.
******
And just before we take the dinner break, let's talk briefly about these witnesses from the family and what they had to say. The first. We first called Arnelle Simpson, and you saw Arnelle on the stand. Arnelle Simpson, the Defendant's daughter, born the day he won the Heisman trophy
******
And she told you how her father reacted when he got the news that his ex-wife had been killed. She told you. She had never before heard her father sound like that, how upset he was, how he lost control of himself, how distraught he was. You heard and you saw her on that stand. That is why we called her, so you would have better understanding, because we knew, I knew there would come a day that Marcia Clark would stand here and say, well, you know, he wouldn't react like he does when somebody gets this information, just like he did yesterday, because what Miss Clark forgot was I examined Detective Phillips. And you look back through your notes. The first thing that O.J. Simpson said to Detective Phillips was, "What do you mean she has been killed?" And then he kept repeating himself and repeating himself, and Phillips, to his credit, said he became very, very upset, kept repeating himself, and Phillips gave the phone to Arnelle Simpson.
So they can make--she can again theorize, fantasize all she wants. Well, he didn't ask, well, it was a car accident? Have you ever had some bad news given to you? There is no book that you go to. The only book you should go to is the bible or your God, whomever you believe in to help get you through it. There is nothing that says how you would handle yourself in those times. These Prosecutors don't understand that. They would stand here and tell you that that is preposterous. This man was upset. And you are going to see at everything he did from that moment that he found out that his ex-wife had been killed was consistent only with innocence absolutely that day. And so Arnelle Simpson helps us in that regard.
******
Now, when you want to think about the depths to which people will go to try to win, when you want to talk about an obsession to win, I'm going to give you an example. There was a witness in this case named Thano Peratis. This is a man who's their man who took O.J. Simpson's blood. This is a man who had a subpoena, at one point said he could have come down here and testify. They didn't call him. By the time we wanted to call him, he's unavailable because of his heart problem, remember? So what we did is, we read you his grand jury testimony I believe and we played for you his preliminary hearing testimony. And in that testimony, it's very, very consistent. He's been a nurse for a number of years. You saw him. He works for the city of Los Angeles. He says that when he took this blood from O.J. Simpson on June 13th, he took between 7.9 and 8.1 cc's of blood. That's what he said. That's real simple, isn't it? We knew that. He's sworn to tell the truth under oath both places, the grand jury and preliminary hearing. Pretty clear, isn't it? Pretty clear. You remember in my opening statement, I told you, you know, something's wrong here, something's sinister here, something's wrong, because if we take all their figures and assume they took 8 cc's of blood, there's 6.5 cc's accounted for, there is 1.5 cc's missing of this blood. There's some missing blood in this case. Where is it?
******
It took all four detectives, all four LAPD experienced detectives to leave the bodies. They had to notify the Coroner. They didn't have a criminalist to go over to notify O.J. Simpson. Who's fooling who here? This is preposterous. They're lying, trying to get over that wall to get in that house. You don't believe so? You're talking about saving lives. Remember what Arnelle said. First of all, they all make this big mistake. They forget and they say, "Well, when we leave from the back, we go right in that back door of the house there, go right in the back door." But they forgot. Arnelle Simpson comes in here and testifies you can't go in the back door because remember, Kato had put on the alarm. You had to go around the house to the front. Arnelle had to open the keypad to let them in, remember? You think who knows better? You'd think she knows better or they know better? She had to let them in. So they're worried about dead bodies and people being in that house and saving lives? Who goes in first? Arnelle Simpson goes in first. These big, brave police officers, and the young lady just walks in there first. They don't go upstairs looking. They just want to be inside that house and make her leave to give Fuhrman a chance to start what he's doing, strolling around the premises and doing what he's doing there.
******
Then we come, before we end the day, to Detective Mark Fuhrman. This man is an unspeakable disgrace. He's been unmasked for the whole world for what he is, and that's hopefully positive.
******
And they put him on the stand and you saw it. You saw it. It was sickening. And then my colleague, Lee Bailey, who can't be with us today, but God bless him, wherever he is, did his cross-examination of this individual and he asked some interesting questions. Some of you probably wondered, "I wonder why he's asking that." He asked this man whether or not he ever met Kathleen Bell. Of course, he lied about that.
******
Then Bailey says: "Have you used that word, referring to the `n' word, in the past 10 years? "Not that I recall, no. "You mean, if you call someone a Nigger, you had forgotten it?
"I'm not sure I can answer the question the way it's phrased, sir." And they go on. He says, "Well--" And then pins him down. "I want you to assume that perhaps at some time since 1985 or `86, you addressed a member of the African American race as a Nigger. Is it possible that you have forgotten that act on your part? "Answer: No, it is not possible. "Are you, therefore, saying that you have not used that word in the past 10 years, Detective Fuhrman?
"Answer: Yes. That is what I'm saying. "Question: And you say under oath that you have not addressed any black person as a Nigger or spoken about black people as niggers in the past 10 years, Detective Fuhrman? "That's what I'm saying, sir. "So that anyone who comes to this court and quotes you as using that word in dealing with African Americans would be a liar; would they not, Detective Fuhrman? "Yes, they would”.
******
Let's remember this man. This is the man who was off this case shortly after 2:00 o'clock in the morning right after he got on it. This is the man who didn't want to be off this case. This is the man, when they're ringing the doorbell at Ashford, who goes for a walk. And he describes how he's strolling. Let me quote him for you. Here's what he says:
"I was just strolling along looking at the house. Maybe I could see some movement inside. I was just walking while the other three detectives were down there." And that's when he walks down and he's the one who says the Bronco was parked askew and he sees some spot on the door. He makes all of the discoveries. He's got to be the big man because he's had it in for O.J. because of his views since `85. This is the man, he's the guy who climbs over the fence. He's the guy who goes in and talks to Kato Kaelin while the other detectives are talking to the family. He's the guy who's shining a light in Kato Kaelin's eyes. He's the guy looking at shoes and looking for suspects. He's the guy who's doing these things. He's the guy who says, "I don't tell anybody about the thumps on the wall." He's the guy who's off this case who's supposedly there to help this man, our client, O.J. Simpson, who then goes out all by himself, all by himself.
Now, he's worried about bodies or suspects or whatever. He doesn't even take out his gun. He goes around the side of the house, and lo and behold, he claims he finds this glove and he says the glove is still moist and sticky. Now, under their theory, at 10:40, 10:45, that glove is dropped. How many hours is that? It's now after 6:00 o'clock. So what is that? Seven and a half hours. The testimony about drying time around here, no dew point that night. Why would it be moist and sticky unless he brought it over there and planted it there to try to make this case? And there is a Caucasian hair on that glove. This man cannot be trusted. He is sinful to the Prosecution, and for them to say he's not important is untrue and you will not fall for it, because as guardians of justice here, we can't let it happen.
******
Why did they then all try to cover for this man Fuhrman? Why would this man who is not only Los Angeles' worst nightmare, but America's worse nightmare, why would they all turn their heads and try to cover for them? Why would you do that if you are sworn to uphold the law? There is something about corruption. There is something about a rotten apple that will ultimately infect the entire barrel, because if the others don't have the courage that we have asked you to have in this case, people sit sadly by. We live in a society where many people are apathetic, they don't want to get involved, and that is why all of us, to a person, in this courtroom, have thanked you from the bottom of our hearts. Because you know what? You haven't been apathetic. You are the ones who made a commitment, a commitment toward justice, and it is a painful commitment, but you've got to see it through. Your commitment, your courage, is much greater than these police officers. This man could have been off the force long ago if they had done their job, but they didn't do their job. People looked the other way. People didn't have the courage. One of the things that has made this country so great is people's willingness to stand up and say that is wrong. I'm not going to be part of it. I'm not going to be part of the cover-up. That is what I'm asking you to do. Stop this cover-up. Stop this cover-up. If you don't stop it, then who? Do you think the police department is going to stop it? Do you think the D.A.'s office is going to stop it? Do you think we can stop it by ourselves? It has to be stopped by you.
******
But the capper was finding those tapes, something that you could hear. Lest there be any doubt in anybody's mind, Laura McKinny came in here, and I can imagine the frustration of the Prosecutors, they've had the glove demonstration, they have seen all these other things go wrong and now they got to face these tapes.
******
We owe a debt of gratitude to this lady that ultimately and finally she came forward. And she tells us that this man over the time of these interviews uses the "N" word 42 times is what she says.
And so-called Fuhrman tapes. And you of course had an opportunity to listen to this man and espouse this evil, this personification of evil. And so I'm going to ask Mr. Harris to play exhibit 1368 one more time. It was a transcript. This was not on tape. The tape had been erased where he said, "We have no niggers where I grew up." These are two of 42, if you recall. Then this was his actual voice.
(At 10:00 A.M., Defense exhibit 1368, a videotape, was played.)
This is the word text for what he then says on the tape. Now, you heard that voice. No question whose voice that is. Mr. Darden concedes whose voice that is. They don't do anything. Talking about women. Doesn't like them any better than he likes African Americans. They don't go out and initiate contact with some six foot five inch Nigger who has been in prison pumping weights. This is how he sees this world. That is this man's cynical view of the world. This is this man who is out there protecting and serving. That is Mark Fuhrman.
Simpson Trial Page
.
JOHNNIE COCHRAN’S CLOSING ARGUMENT
******
MR. COCHRAN: The Defendant, Mr. Orenthal James Simpson, is now afforded an opportunity to argue the case, if you will, but I'm not going to argue with you, ladies and gentlemen. What I'm going to do is to try and discuss the reasonable inferences which I feel can be drawn from this evidence.
******
Ultimately, it's what you determine to be the facts is what's going to be important, and all of us can live with that. You are empowered to do justice. You are empowered to ensure that this great system of ours works. Listen for a moment, will you, please. One of my favorite people in history is the great Frederick Douglas. He said shortly after the slaves were freed, quote, "In a composite nation like ours as before the law, there should be no rich, no poor, no high, no low, no white, no black, but common country, common citizenship, equal rights and a common destiny." This marvelous statement was made more than 100 years ago. It's an ideal worth striving for and one that we still strive for. We haven't reached this goal yet, but certainly in this great country of ours, we're trying. With a jury such as this, we hope we can do that in this particular case.
******
I'd like to comment and to compliment Miss Clark and Mr. Darden on what I thought were fine arguments yesterday. I don't agree with much of what they said, but I listened intently, as I hope you'll do with me. And together, hopefully these discussions are going to be helpful to you in trying to arrive at a decision in this case where you don't compromise, where you don't do violence to your conscious (sic), but you do the right thing. And you are the ones who are empowered to determine what is the right thing. Let me ask each of you a question. Have you ever in your life been falsely accused of something? Have you ever been falsely accused? Ever had to sit there and take it and watch the proceedings and wait and wait and wait, all the while knowing that you didn't do it? All you could do during such a process is to really maintain your dignity; isn't that correct? Knowing that you were innocent, but maintaining your dignity and remembering always that all you're left with after a crisis is your conduct during. So that's another reason why we are proud to represent this man who's maintained his innocence and who has conducted himself with dignity throughout these proceedings. Now, last night, as I thought about the arguments of my colleagues, two words came to mind. And I want to--I asked my wife this morning to get the dictionary out and look up two words. The two words were "Speculative" and "Cynical." Let me see if I can get those words that she got for me.
******
And I want you to tell me what does it mean to speculate, what does it mean to be cynical, as I thought about my colleagues' arguments and their approach to this case and their view of this case. "Cynical" is described as contemptuously distrustful of human nature and motives, gloomy distrustful view of life. And to speculate--to speculate, to engage in conjecture and to surmise or--is to take to be the truth on the basis of insufficient evidence. I mention those two definitions to you because I felt that much of what we heard yesterday and again this morning was mere speculation.
******
People see things that are totally cynical. Maybe that's their view of the world. Not everybody shares that view. Now, in this case--and this is a homicide case and a very, very, very serious case. And of course, it's important for us to understand that. It is a sad fact that in American society, a large number of people are murdered each year. Violence unfortunately has become a way of life in America. And so when this sort of tragedy does in fact happen, it becomes the business of the police to step up and step in and to take charge of the matter. A good efficient, competent, noncorrupt police department will carefully set about the business of investigating homicides. They won't rush to judgment. They won't be bound by an obsession to win at all costs. They will set about trying to apprehend the killer or killers and trying to protect the innocent from suspicion.
In this case, the victims' families had an absolute right to demand exactly just that in this case. But it was clear unfortunately that in this case, there was another agenda. From the very first orders issued by the LAPD so-called brass, they were more concerned with their own images, the publicity that might be generated from this case than they were in doing professional police work. That's why this case has become such a hallmark and that's why Mr. Simpson is the one on trial. But your verdict in this case will go far beyond the walls of Department 103 because your verdict talks about justice in America and it talks about the police and whether they're above the law and it looks at the police perhaps as though they haven't been looked at very recently. Remember, I told you this is not for the naive, the faint of heart or the timid. So it seems to us that the evidence shows that professional police work took a backseat right at the beginning. Untrained officers trampled--remember, I used the word in opening statement--they traipsed through the evidence.
******
Because of their bungling, they ignored the obvious clues. They didn't pick up paper at the scene with prints on it. Because of their vanity, they very soon pretended to solve this crime and we think implicated an innocent man, and they never, they never ever looked for anyone else. We think if they had done their job as we have done, Mr. Simpson would have been eliminated early on.
******
Now, at the outset, let's talk about this time line for the Defense. I said earlier that Mr. Darden did a good job in his argument, but one thing he tended to trip over and stumble over was when he started to talk about our case. He doesn't know our case like we know our case. It was interesting, wasn't it, because first he stood up and started talking about the time line being at 10:15. Then he said, well, they didn't prove anything, but, "Golly, well, it may have been as late as 10:30." That's interesting, isn't it? Never heard that before.
******
And so as we look then at the time line and the importance of this time line, I want you to remember these words. Like the defining moment in this trial, the day Mr. Darden asked Mr. Simpson to try on those gloves and the gloves didn't fit, remember these words; if it doesn't fit, you must acquit. And we are going to be talking about that throughout. So to summarize, if you take the witnesses that we presented who stand unimpeached, unimpeached, and if you are left with dogs starting to bark at 10:35 or 10:40, 10:40 let's say--and we know from the most qualified individuals, Henry Lee and Michael Baden, this was a struggle that took from five to 15 minutes. It's already 10:55. And remember, the thumps were at 10:40 or 10:45--O.J. Simpson could not be guilty. He is then entitled to an acquittal
******
And when you are back there deliberating on this case, you're never going to be ever able to reconcile this time line and the fact there's no blood back there and O.J. Simpson would run into an air conditioner on his own property and then under her scenario, he still has the knife and the clothes. But what does she tell you yesterday? Well, he still has the knife and he's in these bloody clothes and presumably in bloody shoes, and what does he do? He goes in the house. Now, thank heaven, Judge Ito took us on a jury view. You've seen this house. You've seen this carpet. If he went in that house with bloody shoes, with bloody clothes, with his bloody hands as they say, where's the blood on the doorknob, where's the blood on the light switch, where's the blood on the banister, where's the blood on the carpet? That's like almost white carpet going up those stairs. Where is all that blood trail they've been banting about in this mountain of evidence? You will see it's little more than a river or a stream. They don't have any mountain or ocean of evidence. It's not so because they say so. That's just rhetoric. We this afternoon are talking about the facts. And so it doesn't make any sense. It just doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
*******
And so she (Ms. Clark) talks about O.J. being very, very recognizable. She talks about O.J. Simpson getting dressed up to go commit these murders. Just before we break for our break, I was thinking--I was thinking last night about this case and their theory and how it didn't make any sense and how it didn't fit and how something is wrong. It occurred to me how they were going to come here, stand up here and tell you how O.J. Simpson was going to disguise himself. He was going to put on a knit cap and some dark clothes, and he was going to get in his white Bronco, this recognizable person, and go over and kill his wife. That's what they want you to believe. That's how silly their argument is. And I said to myself, maybe I can demonstrate this graphically. Let me show you something. This is a knit cap. Let me put this knit cap on (Indicating). You have seen me for a year. If I put this knit cap on, who am I? I'm still Johnnie Cochran with a knit cap. And if you looked at O.J. Simpson over there--and he has a rather large head--O.J. Simpson in a knit cap from two blocks away is still O.J. Simpson. It's no disguise. It's no disguise. It makes no sense. It doesn't fit. If it doesn't fit, you must acquit.
******
Consider everything that Mr. Simpson would have had to have done in a very short time under their timeline. He would have had to drive over to Bundy, as they described in this little limited time frame where there is not enough time, kill two athletic people in a struggle that takes five to fifteen minutes, walk slowly from the scene, return to the scene, supposedly looking for a missing hat and glove and poking around, go back to this alley a second time, drive more than five minutes to Rockingham where nobody hears him or sees him, either stop along the way to hide these bloody clothes and knives, et cetera, or take them in the house with you where they are still hoisted by their own petard because there is no blood, there is no trace, there is no nothing. So that is why the Prosecution has had to try and push back their timeline. Even to today they are still pushing it back because it doesn't make any sense. It doesn't fit.
******
As I started to say before, perhaps the single most defining moment in this trial is the day they thought they would conduct this experiment on these gloves. They had this big build-up with Mr. Rubin who had been out of the business for five, six, seven, eight years, he had been in marketing even when he was there, but they were going to try to demonstrate to you that these were the killer's gloves and these gloves would fit Mr. Simpson. You don't need any photographs to understand this. I suppose that vision is indelibly imprinted in each and every one of your minds of how Mr. Simpson walked over here and stood before you and you saw four simple words, "The gloves didn't fit." And all their strategy started changing after that. Rubin was called back here more than all their witnesses, four times altogether. Rubin testified more than the investigating officers in this case, because their case from that day forward was slipping away from them and they knew it and they could never ever recapture it. We may all live to be a hundred years old, and I hope we do, but you will always remember those gloves, when Darden asked him to try them on, didn't fit.
******
Consider the EAP b found under Nicole Brown Simpson's fingernails where they try to come in and tell you it is a degraded BA and a cross-examination. Again Blasier got Matheson to admit there was no specific support in any of the literature for a BA degraded into a B, and this was by all accounts a double-banded B. The reason they didn't want to pursue that, because she may have scratched somebody with a b type, but they never pursued those things. The second hat at Bundy. The Bundy location inside, when the Defense investigator finds this hat, nobody wanted to collect it. They refused in fact to collect it. When we in this trial, before you, discovered that evidence had been moved at Bundy and that a key piece of evidence, the piece of paper, had disappeared, they didn't do anything to find out about it that we know of. I am concerned about those kind of things.
******
So we heard last night and we are treated to this morning some very, very interesting observations by my learned colleague, Mr. Darden.
******
Now, this is interesting because Mr. Darden started off by saying, well, you know, we are going to put together this other piece, it is not really one of the elements of the crime of murder, motive, but we are going to talk to you about motive now. We are going to tell you and convince you about the motive in this case, and then he spent a long time trying to do that. As I say, he did a fine job and addressed the facts and conjured up a lot of emotion. You notice how at the end he kind of petered out of steam there, and I'm sure he got tired and he petered out because this fuse he kept talking about kept going out. It never blew up, never exploded. There was no triggering mechanism. There is nothing to lead to that. It was a nice analogy, almost like that baby analogy, the baby justice and the house of fire. You don't have to go through the house of fire. You have to keep yourself on the prize, the house of justice, a city called Justice, and that is what this is leading to, so this is what it is all about. The court--Mr. Darden looks up there, says, well, gee, judge, whatever limited purpose, but let's talk about the limited purpose for which all of his argument was about. When you talk about this evidence of other crimes, such evidence was received--excuse me, sir--and may be considered by you only for the limited purpose of determining if it tends to show the characteristic method or plan or scheme about identity or motive. For the limited purpose for which you may consider such evidence, you must weigh it in the same manner as you do all other evidence in the case. You are not permitted to consider such evidence for any other purpose. So this isn't about character assassination of O.J. Simpson, as you might think at first blush. This is about Mr. Darden trying to conjure up a motive for you. And at the outset let me say that no, none, not one little bit of domestic violence is tolerable between a man and a woman. O.J. Simpson is not proud of that 1989 incident. He is not proud of it. But you know what? He paid his debt to that and it went to court. He went through that program. And the one good thing, and no matter how long Darden talked, from 1989 to now there was never any physical violence between O.J. Simpson and Nicole Brown Simpson
******
It is wonderful that we live in the age of videotape because it tells you about who O.J. Simpson. Cindy Garvey tells you how O.J. Simpson was. He was this mean dark brooding person at this concert, that he was going to kill his ex-wife because he didn't like his seats. Because he didn't like his seats or because he didn't invite her to dinner. That is how silly what they are talking about in this case as he tries to play out this drama. But let me show you, rather than talk--a picture is worth a thousand words, so let me show you this video. You watch this video for a moment and we will talk about it. This is for Chris Darden.
(At 4:19 P.M. a videotape was played.)
You will recognize some of the people in this videotape after awhile. Mr. Simpson kissing Denise Brown, Miss Juditha Brown, Mr. Louis Brown. Talking to a friend. That is his son Justin who he kisses, smiling and happily waving. Mr. Brown is happy. Laughing and falling down and laughing again, bending over laughing. You see that. You see that with your own eyes. You will have that back in this jury room. How does that comport with this tortured, twisted reasoning that he was angry in some kind of a jealous rage? Did he look like he was a jealous rage to you? Your eyes aren't lying to you when you see that. Thank heaven we have videotape. I didn't tell you about that in opening statement. Do you think that is pretty compelling? Thank heaven we have that. And we know in this city how important videotapes can be when people don't want to believe things even when they see on it videotapes and you saw that yourself.
******
And even after that video, like any proud papa, you know what O.J. Simpson did? Took a picture, a photograph with his daughter. Let's look at this photograph for a minute, if you want to see how he looks while he is in this murderous rage, while this fuse is going on that Darden talks about. Where is the fuse now, Mr. Darden? Where is the fuse? Look at that look on his face liked (sic) any proud papa. He is proud of that little girl and who wouldn't be proud of her
******
Then we know that at nine o'clock he talked to Christian Reichardt, his friend Dr. Christian Reichardt, and you saw Chris Reichardt come in here and talk to you. I thought he made a very, very, very good witness from the standpoint of what he had to say. He told you that O.J. Simpson sounded even happier than usual. He was more jovial, he got his life back together and he was moving on. Isn't that interesting? Isn't that an interesting way of looking at circumstantial evidence. Let me show you how we differ in this case. A doctor witness comes in and says O.J. Simpson is jovial at nine o'clock on June 12th. Pretty good evidence, wouldn't you say? I think you would love to have that. Anybody would in a case where you are supposedly in a murderous rage. Instead of Chris Darden standing here and saying, well, that is pretty tough evidence for us to overcome, he says O.J. Simpson was happy because he was going to kill his wife. Now, if you believe that, I suppose I might as well sit down now and I am probably wasting my time. I don't think any of you believe that. That is preposterous. It flies in the face of everything that is reasonable. You have these two reasonable hypotheses, his isn't reasonable, but assume it is reasonable, you would have to adopt this, that he is jovial, he is happy. They make a date for that next Wednesday and O.J. Simpson returns from back east. You remember that. That is the testimony. Mr. Darden tries to make a big thing of the fact, well, gee, you know, golly, was he depressed about the fact that they had broken up or they had finally broke up? He said, yeah, he had been down. He never said he was depressed. Said he was down or upset and who wouldn't be. Remember the last questions I asked. If you had just ended a 17-year relationship and it was over, you would feel down for a short period of time until you got your life on track. You wouldn't go kill your ex-wife, the mother of your children. O.J. Simpson didn't try to kill or didn't kill Nicole Brown Simpson when they got a divorce, when they went through whatever they went through when Faye Resnick moved in.
******
In this case in opening statement I showed you Bob Shapiro's foresight and wisdom. He had these photographs taken I think on June 15th. Instead of praising this lawyer who was interested in the truth, the Prosecution says, well, they went to Dr. Huisenga. That wasn't really his doctor. Isn't that preposterous. Dr. Huisenga, by all accounts, is a qualified doctor. He was the raiders team doctor. I suppose he is supposes qualified. This is Mr. O.J. Simpson's body as it appeared on June 15th. Wouldn't you expect to see a lot of bruises and marks on that body? You see his back. Some of these aren't very flattering, but this is not about flattery; this is about his life. Now, on his hands--there is some slight abrasions on his hands, but nothing consistent with a fight like this. You know it. I know it. We all know it. We will talk more about this, this so-called fishhook cut and where he got that. It will become very clear when we talk about demeanor where that came from. Miss Clark wants to try and confuse that, but that is very, very clear. So with regard to Mr. Simpson's physical condition, I don't want to just tell you to take my word, stand here and say, oh, yeah, he was in great shape on that day or he looked good or whatever. Fortunately we had photographs again, we had graphic evidence of this man's body. This man had not been in a life and death struggle for five to fifteen minutes.
******
And just before we take the dinner break, let's talk briefly about these witnesses from the family and what they had to say. The first. We first called Arnelle Simpson, and you saw Arnelle on the stand. Arnelle Simpson, the Defendant's daughter, born the day he won the Heisman trophy
******
And she told you how her father reacted when he got the news that his ex-wife had been killed. She told you. She had never before heard her father sound like that, how upset he was, how he lost control of himself, how distraught he was. You heard and you saw her on that stand. That is why we called her, so you would have better understanding, because we knew, I knew there would come a day that Marcia Clark would stand here and say, well, you know, he wouldn't react like he does when somebody gets this information, just like he did yesterday, because what Miss Clark forgot was I examined Detective Phillips. And you look back through your notes. The first thing that O.J. Simpson said to Detective Phillips was, "What do you mean she has been killed?" And then he kept repeating himself and repeating himself, and Phillips, to his credit, said he became very, very upset, kept repeating himself, and Phillips gave the phone to Arnelle Simpson.
So they can make--she can again theorize, fantasize all she wants. Well, he didn't ask, well, it was a car accident? Have you ever had some bad news given to you? There is no book that you go to. The only book you should go to is the bible or your God, whomever you believe in to help get you through it. There is nothing that says how you would handle yourself in those times. These Prosecutors don't understand that. They would stand here and tell you that that is preposterous. This man was upset. And you are going to see at everything he did from that moment that he found out that his ex-wife had been killed was consistent only with innocence absolutely that day. And so Arnelle Simpson helps us in that regard.
******
Now, when you want to think about the depths to which people will go to try to win, when you want to talk about an obsession to win, I'm going to give you an example. There was a witness in this case named Thano Peratis. This is a man who's their man who took O.J. Simpson's blood. This is a man who had a subpoena, at one point said he could have come down here and testify. They didn't call him. By the time we wanted to call him, he's unavailable because of his heart problem, remember? So what we did is, we read you his grand jury testimony I believe and we played for you his preliminary hearing testimony. And in that testimony, it's very, very consistent. He's been a nurse for a number of years. You saw him. He works for the city of Los Angeles. He says that when he took this blood from O.J. Simpson on June 13th, he took between 7.9 and 8.1 cc's of blood. That's what he said. That's real simple, isn't it? We knew that. He's sworn to tell the truth under oath both places, the grand jury and preliminary hearing. Pretty clear, isn't it? Pretty clear. You remember in my opening statement, I told you, you know, something's wrong here, something's sinister here, something's wrong, because if we take all their figures and assume they took 8 cc's of blood, there's 6.5 cc's accounted for, there is 1.5 cc's missing of this blood. There's some missing blood in this case. Where is it?
******
It took all four detectives, all four LAPD experienced detectives to leave the bodies. They had to notify the Coroner. They didn't have a criminalist to go over to notify O.J. Simpson. Who's fooling who here? This is preposterous. They're lying, trying to get over that wall to get in that house. You don't believe so? You're talking about saving lives. Remember what Arnelle said. First of all, they all make this big mistake. They forget and they say, "Well, when we leave from the back, we go right in that back door of the house there, go right in the back door." But they forgot. Arnelle Simpson comes in here and testifies you can't go in the back door because remember, Kato had put on the alarm. You had to go around the house to the front. Arnelle had to open the keypad to let them in, remember? You think who knows better? You'd think she knows better or they know better? She had to let them in. So they're worried about dead bodies and people being in that house and saving lives? Who goes in first? Arnelle Simpson goes in first. These big, brave police officers, and the young lady just walks in there first. They don't go upstairs looking. They just want to be inside that house and make her leave to give Fuhrman a chance to start what he's doing, strolling around the premises and doing what he's doing there.
******
Then we come, before we end the day, to Detective Mark Fuhrman. This man is an unspeakable disgrace. He's been unmasked for the whole world for what he is, and that's hopefully positive.
******
And they put him on the stand and you saw it. You saw it. It was sickening. And then my colleague, Lee Bailey, who can't be with us today, but God bless him, wherever he is, did his cross-examination of this individual and he asked some interesting questions. Some of you probably wondered, "I wonder why he's asking that." He asked this man whether or not he ever met Kathleen Bell. Of course, he lied about that.
******
Then Bailey says: "Have you used that word, referring to the `n' word, in the past 10 years? "Not that I recall, no. "You mean, if you call someone a Nigger, you had forgotten it?
"I'm not sure I can answer the question the way it's phrased, sir." And they go on. He says, "Well--" And then pins him down. "I want you to assume that perhaps at some time since 1985 or `86, you addressed a member of the African American race as a Nigger. Is it possible that you have forgotten that act on your part? "Answer: No, it is not possible. "Are you, therefore, saying that you have not used that word in the past 10 years, Detective Fuhrman?
"Answer: Yes. That is what I'm saying. "Question: And you say under oath that you have not addressed any black person as a Nigger or spoken about black people as niggers in the past 10 years, Detective Fuhrman? "That's what I'm saying, sir. "So that anyone who comes to this court and quotes you as using that word in dealing with African Americans would be a liar; would they not, Detective Fuhrman? "Yes, they would”.
******
Let's remember this man. This is the man who was off this case shortly after 2:00 o'clock in the morning right after he got on it. This is the man who didn't want to be off this case. This is the man, when they're ringing the doorbell at Ashford, who goes for a walk. And he describes how he's strolling. Let me quote him for you. Here's what he says:
"I was just strolling along looking at the house. Maybe I could see some movement inside. I was just walking while the other three detectives were down there." And that's when he walks down and he's the one who says the Bronco was parked askew and he sees some spot on the door. He makes all of the discoveries. He's got to be the big man because he's had it in for O.J. because of his views since `85. This is the man, he's the guy who climbs over the fence. He's the guy who goes in and talks to Kato Kaelin while the other detectives are talking to the family. He's the guy who's shining a light in Kato Kaelin's eyes. He's the guy looking at shoes and looking for suspects. He's the guy who's doing these things. He's the guy who says, "I don't tell anybody about the thumps on the wall." He's the guy who's off this case who's supposedly there to help this man, our client, O.J. Simpson, who then goes out all by himself, all by himself.
Now, he's worried about bodies or suspects or whatever. He doesn't even take out his gun. He goes around the side of the house, and lo and behold, he claims he finds this glove and he says the glove is still moist and sticky. Now, under their theory, at 10:40, 10:45, that glove is dropped. How many hours is that? It's now after 6:00 o'clock. So what is that? Seven and a half hours. The testimony about drying time around here, no dew point that night. Why would it be moist and sticky unless he brought it over there and planted it there to try to make this case? And there is a Caucasian hair on that glove. This man cannot be trusted. He is sinful to the Prosecution, and for them to say he's not important is untrue and you will not fall for it, because as guardians of justice here, we can't let it happen.
******
Why did they then all try to cover for this man Fuhrman? Why would this man who is not only Los Angeles' worst nightmare, but America's worse nightmare, why would they all turn their heads and try to cover for them? Why would you do that if you are sworn to uphold the law? There is something about corruption. There is something about a rotten apple that will ultimately infect the entire barrel, because if the others don't have the courage that we have asked you to have in this case, people sit sadly by. We live in a society where many people are apathetic, they don't want to get involved, and that is why all of us, to a person, in this courtroom, have thanked you from the bottom of our hearts. Because you know what? You haven't been apathetic. You are the ones who made a commitment, a commitment toward justice, and it is a painful commitment, but you've got to see it through. Your commitment, your courage, is much greater than these police officers. This man could have been off the force long ago if they had done their job, but they didn't do their job. People looked the other way. People didn't have the courage. One of the things that has made this country so great is people's willingness to stand up and say that is wrong. I'm not going to be part of it. I'm not going to be part of the cover-up. That is what I'm asking you to do. Stop this cover-up. Stop this cover-up. If you don't stop it, then who? Do you think the police department is going to stop it? Do you think the D.A.'s office is going to stop it? Do you think we can stop it by ourselves? It has to be stopped by you.
******
But the capper was finding those tapes, something that you could hear. Lest there be any doubt in anybody's mind, Laura McKinny came in here, and I can imagine the frustration of the Prosecutors, they've had the glove demonstration, they have seen all these other things go wrong and now they got to face these tapes.
******
We owe a debt of gratitude to this lady that ultimately and finally she came forward. And she tells us that this man over the time of these interviews uses the "N" word 42 times is what she says.
And so-called Fuhrman tapes. And you of course had an opportunity to listen to this man and espouse this evil, this personification of evil. And so I'm going to ask Mr. Harris to play exhibit 1368 one more time. It was a transcript. This was not on tape. The tape had been erased where he said, "We have no niggers where I grew up." These are two of 42, if you recall. Then this was his actual voice.
(At 10:00 A.M., Defense exhibit 1368, a videotape, was played.)
This is the word text for what he then says on the tape. Now, you heard that voice. No question whose voice that is. Mr. Darden concedes whose voice that is. They don't do anything. Talking about women. Doesn't like them any better than he likes African Americans. They don't go out and initiate contact with some six foot five inch Nigger who has been in prison pumping weights. This is how he sees this world. That is this man's cynical view of the world. This is this man who is out there protecting and serving. That is Mark Fuhrman.
Simpson Trial Page
Debate Homework: Closing Argument
All students must create a closing argument. Your closing argument simply raps up your argument be it pro or con for the Three Strikes Law. It is the last thing that your opponent will remember you by.
Your closing argument should come from the heart. It should really encompass your beliefs regarding the Three Strikes Laws.
This is assignment is worth 0-100 points. As always your points depend on how well your assignment is written, and if there are any errors.
This will be due Thursday or Friday depending on what date I see you on. No late work will be accepted.
Your closing argument should come from the heart. It should really encompass your beliefs regarding the Three Strikes Laws.
This is assignment is worth 0-100 points. As always your points depend on how well your assignment is written, and if there are any errors.
This will be due Thursday or Friday depending on what date I see you on. No late work will be accepted.
Debate Homework: Pros/Cons
All students must create a pro/con paragraph worksheet exactly like the model given to you in class. The student model given to you in class with the argument and pro/con break down is exactly the way you must construct your 10 pro/con worksheets based on ten articles that you have read and selected for break down.
For every article that you have read there is a pro side and there is a con side you are asked to in paragraph form to construct the pros and cons in the same way as your example sheet on pages 21-22 from your 8th grade test prep.
Each pro/con worksheet is worth 0-50 points. Your pros/cons must be: good and free of errors in order to receive the max points. It must look exactly like your model pro/con sheet.
You were asked to create 2 a night so that by Tue/Wed you should have all 10 complete. Remember 4 were due last week.
No late work accepted.
For every article that you have read there is a pro side and there is a con side you are asked to in paragraph form to construct the pros and cons in the same way as your example sheet on pages 21-22 from your 8th grade test prep.
Each pro/con worksheet is worth 0-50 points. Your pros/cons must be: good and free of errors in order to receive the max points. It must look exactly like your model pro/con sheet.
You were asked to create 2 a night so that by Tue/Wed you should have all 10 complete. Remember 4 were due last week.
No late work accepted.
Debate Homework : Opening Statement
First and foremost, prepare your opening so that it tells a complete and interesting story. Do your best to avoid a bland, boring discussion of what the evidence will show. The opening should be "alive," well organized, and persuasive. The theme of the case should be clearly and concisely presented. Further, you should identify the important documents and demonstrate what they will prove.
Students must create an opening argument which address a side either for or against the Three Strikes Law. This opening statement must come from you, and it must be a result of your extensive homework reading of the articles on the Three Strikes Law.
Your opening argument must be 1-2 paragraphs, typed , free of spelling errors, free of grammar errors, and free of illogical errors. Students will receive 0-100 points for this assignment depending on quality as it may or may not meet the above criteria which is set forth by your CA standards for 8th grade. These paragraphs must be clearly constructed and they must be virtually free of all errors to receive the max points of 100 points.
This assignment is due the next time I see you. No late work accepted..........
Students must create an opening argument which address a side either for or against the Three Strikes Law. This opening statement must come from you, and it must be a result of your extensive homework reading of the articles on the Three Strikes Law.
Your opening argument must be 1-2 paragraphs, typed , free of spelling errors, free of grammar errors, and free of illogical errors. Students will receive 0-100 points for this assignment depending on quality as it may or may not meet the above criteria which is set forth by your CA standards for 8th grade. These paragraphs must be clearly constructed and they must be virtually free of all errors to receive the max points of 100 points.
This assignment is due the next time I see you. No late work accepted..........
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Great Example of a Good Argument
Strong sentences are common "tough on crime" tool used to reduce the incentives for individuals to participate in criminal activity. However, the design of such policies often ignores other margins along which individuals interested in participating in crime may adjust. I use California's Three Strikes law to identify several effects of a large increase in the penalty for a broad set of crimes. Using criminal records data, I estimate that Three Strikes reduced participation in criminal activity by 20 percent for second-strike eligible offenders and a 28 percent decline for third-strike eligible offenders. However, I find two unintended consequences of the law. First, because Three Strikes flattened the penalty gradient with respect to severity, criminals were more likely to commit more violent crimes. Among third-strike eligible offenders, the probability of committing violent crimes increased by 9 percentage points. Second, because California's law was more harsh than the laws of other nearby states, Three Strikes had a "beggar-thy-neighbor" effect increasing the migration of criminals with second and third-strike eligibility to commit crimes in neighboring states. The high cost of incarceration combined with the high cost of violent crime relative to non-violent crime implies that Three Strikes may not be a cost-effective means of reducing crime.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Example of An Argument for the Three Strikes Law
The three strikes and you’re out proposal has been strangled in the crib by the usual suspects.
The proposal is now in the process of being reconfigured. The reconfiguring will be costly.
The original proposal would have prevented judges from using their discretion in sentencing criminals already convicted of three serious violent felonies. Upon commission of a third felony, the presiding judge would be obliged to remand the criminals to prison for life.
That is the nub and center of the three strikes and you’re out proposal.
The proposal was introduced after a horrific murder in Cheshire. Two petty criminals who had been processed under Connecticut’s present liberal court system, upon release from jail, graduated to serious felonies. They followed the mother of a family home, broke into her house, beat her husband with a baseball bat, tied him up in the cellar, drove the mother to her bank where she was forced to withdraw money, raped the mother, raped one of the daughters, bound all three women to a bed, doused all of them with gasoline and set them on fire.
The mother had an opportunity while in the bank to alert officials, who then called the police, who raced to the scene and apprehended the two no longer "petty burglars" on their way to freedom.
Lots of strikes there.
Naturally, this being Connecticut, there was at first a substantial outcry, followed by a proposal to enact a three strikes and you’re out law, followed by some notices in papers that such a law would not have applied to the two petty burglars, followed by a few thoughtful opinion pieces questioning the propriety of a three strikes and you’re out bill, followed by a stiff resolve to oppose the bill and instead enact legislation that would be more responsive to the facts on the ground.
The new proposals include fists full of money thrown in the direction of Connecticut’s penal system: more beds for prisoners, more outreach programs, a reformed parole board, more parole monitors, etc., etc., etc., as the king of Siam might say, and finally, a consummation dear to the hearts of Connecticut empathetic liberals, an end to the prosecution of crimes in which there are no victims, like pot smoking and drug dealing.
The idea is to make these non-violent crimes legal and then tax them out of business; in this way, Connecticut will reap more revenue to pay for all the workable proposals that have been offered as a means of preventing burglars from beating people with baseball bats, raping women and setting them on fire.
Along this merry way, a couple of things have escaped notice, the most important of which is that the three strikes and you’re out proposal was narrowly constructed to apply only to those criminals who have committed three serious felonies.
The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and in the legislature who oppose the notion are saying something like this: Because laws on speeding do not apply to jaywalking, they are therefore unnecessary.
Of course a three strikes and you’re out law will not apply to criminals who have committed two violent felonies or to petty burglars or to jay walkers. The law is what it is. Laws are by nature limited prohibitions. The petty burglars who invaded the home in Cheshire might be eligible under the terms of such a law if they had been tried separately for each of their strikes at the Cheshire family. The law compels a judge to sentence to life in prison violent offenders who have committed three previous violent felonies, which, come to think of it, is the whole point and purpose of the three strikes and you’re out law.
None of the additional proposals made by those on the judiciary committed and others to address the problem of violence in Connecticut are incompatible with a three strikes and you’re out law. This is not an either/or proposition; all the measures that recently have been proposed can go forward at the same time. Though it is doubtful that decriminalizing pot will prevent home invasion in Cheshire, no commentator or editorialist has yet proposed that the proposal to decriminalize pot should be abandoned because it would not prevent violent home invasions.
Yet this is the rationalization used by opponents of the three strikes and you’re out proposal: The proposal will not prevent murderous home invasions by petty burglars, therefore it is unnecessary. But it is necessary to prevent a fourth violent felony, and any additional proposals to insure the public safety should pass in tandem with a three strikes and you’re out law.
The proposal is now in the process of being reconfigured. The reconfiguring will be costly.
The original proposal would have prevented judges from using their discretion in sentencing criminals already convicted of three serious violent felonies. Upon commission of a third felony, the presiding judge would be obliged to remand the criminals to prison for life.
That is the nub and center of the three strikes and you’re out proposal.
The proposal was introduced after a horrific murder in Cheshire. Two petty criminals who had been processed under Connecticut’s present liberal court system, upon release from jail, graduated to serious felonies. They followed the mother of a family home, broke into her house, beat her husband with a baseball bat, tied him up in the cellar, drove the mother to her bank where she was forced to withdraw money, raped the mother, raped one of the daughters, bound all three women to a bed, doused all of them with gasoline and set them on fire.
The mother had an opportunity while in the bank to alert officials, who then called the police, who raced to the scene and apprehended the two no longer "petty burglars" on their way to freedom.
Lots of strikes there.
Naturally, this being Connecticut, there was at first a substantial outcry, followed by a proposal to enact a three strikes and you’re out law, followed by some notices in papers that such a law would not have applied to the two petty burglars, followed by a few thoughtful opinion pieces questioning the propriety of a three strikes and you’re out bill, followed by a stiff resolve to oppose the bill and instead enact legislation that would be more responsive to the facts on the ground.
The new proposals include fists full of money thrown in the direction of Connecticut’s penal system: more beds for prisoners, more outreach programs, a reformed parole board, more parole monitors, etc., etc., etc., as the king of Siam might say, and finally, a consummation dear to the hearts of Connecticut empathetic liberals, an end to the prosecution of crimes in which there are no victims, like pot smoking and drug dealing.
The idea is to make these non-violent crimes legal and then tax them out of business; in this way, Connecticut will reap more revenue to pay for all the workable proposals that have been offered as a means of preventing burglars from beating people with baseball bats, raping women and setting them on fire.
Along this merry way, a couple of things have escaped notice, the most important of which is that the three strikes and you’re out proposal was narrowly constructed to apply only to those criminals who have committed three serious felonies.
The Democrats on the Judiciary Committee and in the legislature who oppose the notion are saying something like this: Because laws on speeding do not apply to jaywalking, they are therefore unnecessary.
Of course a three strikes and you’re out law will not apply to criminals who have committed two violent felonies or to petty burglars or to jay walkers. The law is what it is. Laws are by nature limited prohibitions. The petty burglars who invaded the home in Cheshire might be eligible under the terms of such a law if they had been tried separately for each of their strikes at the Cheshire family. The law compels a judge to sentence to life in prison violent offenders who have committed three previous violent felonies, which, come to think of it, is the whole point and purpose of the three strikes and you’re out law.
None of the additional proposals made by those on the judiciary committed and others to address the problem of violence in Connecticut are incompatible with a three strikes and you’re out law. This is not an either/or proposition; all the measures that recently have been proposed can go forward at the same time. Though it is doubtful that decriminalizing pot will prevent home invasion in Cheshire, no commentator or editorialist has yet proposed that the proposal to decriminalize pot should be abandoned because it would not prevent violent home invasions.
Yet this is the rationalization used by opponents of the three strikes and you’re out proposal: The proposal will not prevent murderous home invasions by petty burglars, therefore it is unnecessary. But it is necessary to prevent a fourth violent felony, and any additional proposals to insure the public safety should pass in tandem with a three strikes and you’re out law.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Questions For Your Articles
1) Which parts of this article stand out most in my mind?
2) What is the thesis statement of this argument? Essentially what is the argument.
3) Do you agree with the argument/thesis statement? Explain your position.
4) Give at least 3-4 reasons with evidence for your response.
5) All students as you read you must: take notes and write down any information that may help strengthen an argument either for or against the Three Strikes Law.
6) You must examine An argument by dissecting both sides of an issue or problem. ( I NEED TO SEE THIS I WRITING)
All students must read two articles a night. M-F I will collect your homework weekly. For every article you read you should answer all of the above question in their entirety.....
2) What is the thesis statement of this argument? Essentially what is the argument.
3) Do you agree with the argument/thesis statement? Explain your position.
4) Give at least 3-4 reasons with evidence for your response.
5) All students as you read you must: take notes and write down any information that may help strengthen an argument either for or against the Three Strikes Law.
6) You must examine An argument by dissecting both sides of an issue or problem. ( I NEED TO SEE THIS I WRITING)
All students must read two articles a night. M-F I will collect your homework weekly. For every article you read you should answer all of the above question in their entirety.....
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Friday, April 4, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Article
The Real Victims of California's Three-Strikes Laws are the Taxpayers It's Too Expensive
"Three-Strikes" has become the poster child of the get tough on crime proponents. Numerous states have passed Three-Strikes laws, and California has the toughest version. Advocates for these laws claim they have lowered crime. But have they? Those aware of history are now questioning these claims, as statistics continue to concur with centuries of data showing the crime rate to cycle with demographics and economics--with punishment having little long term effect. Only effective and meaningful rehabilitation programs lower recidivism--not harsh punishment. This was clearly pointed out in the November, 2003, Little Hoover Commission Report, where California's single minded focus on punishment was called a $5.2-billion-a-year-failure.
During the height of Three-Strikes propaganda we enjoyed a near runaway economy, resulting in more jobs, and therefore, less crime. We have just gone through a sinking economy, resulting in less jobs, and therefore, more crime among the poor. Three-Strikes has little to do with the real reasons for changes in crime rates, economics and demographics have the greatest influence. A simplistic formula that has proven true throughout history can be expressed as: the crime rate will be directly proportional to the number of citizens in a society who are under 25 years of age (demographics), and inversely proportional to the number of jobs available to those citizens (economics). History shows that when people don't have jobs they steal--always have and always will. From stealing food, other crimes soon follow, and with little concern for punishment. Anyone who has ever been truly hungry understands this. The formula is complicated by drug culture problems unique to that group, but overall, crime rates follow demographics and economics.
With Three-Strikes, you are actually dealing with a sub-category of crime statistics--recidivism. To this group one must add a third factor--rehabilitation. The Little Hoover Commission Report provided statistics showing the recidivism rate in California, at 67%, to be almost double that of the national average, 35%. Most of the other states do not have Three-Strikes, so it becomes apparent that Three-Strikes has little deterring effect on recidivism. Thus, the question becomes, is the dismal return worth the enormous costs to taxpayers?
Three-Strikes brings other potential problems. Compared to some of history's barbaric punishments that also had little deterrent value, Three-Strikes is quite civilized. At least, so far we haven't reinstated lopping off body parts as punishment. As shown throughout history, the more onerous the punishment, the greater the violence. Recent statistics in the Three-Strikes states also show this same pattern, as we now see an alarming increase in violence against law enforcement. Citizens are also at greater risk, since a dead victim or witness can't talk, the public should be concerned about their safety from desperate criminals facing too harsh a punishment.
Notwithstanding the huge economics costs and violence costs to society resulting from California's harsh application of Three-Strikes, there appears to be a fundamental fairness problem in the inconsistency of the implementation of Three-Strikes laws that goes to the very core of original American values, and similar to the tyranny our forefathers were escaping when they fought for those values.
Statistics show a disproportion of economically disadvantaged and persons of color facing Three-Strikes punishment, as well as no consistency in how the various jurisdictions apply Three-Strikes. In California, a Three-Strikes eligible person who steals to obtain food is likely only to be prosecuted for stealing food in San Francisco. That person has best not steal food in most other counties. This is a simplistic example, but the point being, how does one draw the line fairly and equally to all under the present law? When does the crime become severe enough to evoke the Three-Strikes penalty? There is little consistency between jurisdictions.
These questions and problems along with costs fuel arguments for Three-Strikes reform. The present law gives prosecutors in the various jurisdictions in California discretion to choose whom to target. Initially, the prosecutors had all the power and were dictating to the judges. In 1996, the California Supreme Court in the case People v. Superior Court (Romero), (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 497, gave discretion to judges. However, the actual criteria still varies from judge to judge, from prosecutor to prosecutor, and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction around the state. All the other Three Strikes states require that all three strikes be violent felonies. Not California, where the third strike can be a misdemeanor. This because prosecutors have been granted the authority to elevate misdemeanors such as shoplifting ("Petty Theft") to felonies. These changeable by prosecutorial discretion crime statutes are known as "wobblers," and were recently before the U.S. Supreme Court. In lengthy decisions, following a growing federalism trend, the Justices essentially refused to become involved in judicial activism. Instead, they inferred that changes to these laws should be undertaken by the legislatures' of the states, not the judiciary.
In addition to the fundamental fairness in Three-Strikes law application problem, there is also the economic cost to society of keeping a shoplifter in prison for a minimum of 25 years at an approximate cost in excess of $30,000 per year per inmate. The exact cost number being shrouded in creative statistics is thought to be much higher for long term inmates due to increased security, and then high medical costs for aging inmates.
Presently, there are about 340 Three-Strikes inmates in California prisons whose third strikes was for "Petty Theft." To keep them in prison is a total taxpayer cost of ($30,000 x 340 = $10,200,000) Ten Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars per year. To keep these 340 shoplifters in prison for 25 years will cost ($30,000 x 340 x 25 = $255,000,000), Two Hundred and Fifty Five Million Dollars total, or $750,000 dollars to keep each one for 25 years, and that is based on today's costs assuming that inflation does not increase costs.
There are probably many other Three-Strikes "Wobbler" convicted inmates, making the costs in the billions of dollars. Presently, there are about 7100 total Three-Strikes inmates in California prisons. That is a total taxpayer cost of $30,000 x 7100 = $213,000,000) Two Hundred and Thirteen Million Dollars per year. To keep these 7100 for 25 years costs ($30,000 x 7100 x 25 = $5,325,000,000) Five Billion Three Hundred and Twenty Five Million Dollars. And remember, the number of Three-Strikes inmates has a huge increases every year.
The real victim here is the taxpayer. Particularly in the case of shoplifters whose total cost in stolen merchandise amounts to only a few thousand dollars, but whose punishment costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Historically, prevention and rehabilitation have been shown to be far cheaper than the alternative, e.g., fire prevention is far cheaper than fire damage. The same is true with crime prevention through education and rehabilitation. California's education system should be the priority, not its prison system. The prison system should change its mission from punishment to rehabilitation.
Presently, with tight budget money, education is being denied funds in order to pay for Three-Strikes and other excessively long incarceration schemes. It is time for the taxpayer to demand the changes necessary to bring the system into a balance that will provide effective returns for the costs, fundamental fairness, crime prevention, rehabilitation, and severe punishment only to those truly deserving.
Inmate Tom Watson Shasta County Jail 1655 West Street Redding, CA 96001
"Three-Strikes" has become the poster child of the get tough on crime proponents. Numerous states have passed Three-Strikes laws, and California has the toughest version. Advocates for these laws claim they have lowered crime. But have they? Those aware of history are now questioning these claims, as statistics continue to concur with centuries of data showing the crime rate to cycle with demographics and economics--with punishment having little long term effect. Only effective and meaningful rehabilitation programs lower recidivism--not harsh punishment. This was clearly pointed out in the November, 2003, Little Hoover Commission Report, where California's single minded focus on punishment was called a $5.2-billion-a-year-failure.
During the height of Three-Strikes propaganda we enjoyed a near runaway economy, resulting in more jobs, and therefore, less crime. We have just gone through a sinking economy, resulting in less jobs, and therefore, more crime among the poor. Three-Strikes has little to do with the real reasons for changes in crime rates, economics and demographics have the greatest influence. A simplistic formula that has proven true throughout history can be expressed as: the crime rate will be directly proportional to the number of citizens in a society who are under 25 years of age (demographics), and inversely proportional to the number of jobs available to those citizens (economics). History shows that when people don't have jobs they steal--always have and always will. From stealing food, other crimes soon follow, and with little concern for punishment. Anyone who has ever been truly hungry understands this. The formula is complicated by drug culture problems unique to that group, but overall, crime rates follow demographics and economics.
With Three-Strikes, you are actually dealing with a sub-category of crime statistics--recidivism. To this group one must add a third factor--rehabilitation. The Little Hoover Commission Report provided statistics showing the recidivism rate in California, at 67%, to be almost double that of the national average, 35%. Most of the other states do not have Three-Strikes, so it becomes apparent that Three-Strikes has little deterring effect on recidivism. Thus, the question becomes, is the dismal return worth the enormous costs to taxpayers?
Three-Strikes brings other potential problems. Compared to some of history's barbaric punishments that also had little deterrent value, Three-Strikes is quite civilized. At least, so far we haven't reinstated lopping off body parts as punishment. As shown throughout history, the more onerous the punishment, the greater the violence. Recent statistics in the Three-Strikes states also show this same pattern, as we now see an alarming increase in violence against law enforcement. Citizens are also at greater risk, since a dead victim or witness can't talk, the public should be concerned about their safety from desperate criminals facing too harsh a punishment.
Notwithstanding the huge economics costs and violence costs to society resulting from California's harsh application of Three-Strikes, there appears to be a fundamental fairness problem in the inconsistency of the implementation of Three-Strikes laws that goes to the very core of original American values, and similar to the tyranny our forefathers were escaping when they fought for those values.
Statistics show a disproportion of economically disadvantaged and persons of color facing Three-Strikes punishment, as well as no consistency in how the various jurisdictions apply Three-Strikes. In California, a Three-Strikes eligible person who steals to obtain food is likely only to be prosecuted for stealing food in San Francisco. That person has best not steal food in most other counties. This is a simplistic example, but the point being, how does one draw the line fairly and equally to all under the present law? When does the crime become severe enough to evoke the Three-Strikes penalty? There is little consistency between jurisdictions.
These questions and problems along with costs fuel arguments for Three-Strikes reform. The present law gives prosecutors in the various jurisdictions in California discretion to choose whom to target. Initially, the prosecutors had all the power and were dictating to the judges. In 1996, the California Supreme Court in the case People v. Superior Court (Romero), (1996) 13 Cal. 4th 497, gave discretion to judges. However, the actual criteria still varies from judge to judge, from prosecutor to prosecutor, and from jurisdiction to jurisdiction around the state. All the other Three Strikes states require that all three strikes be violent felonies. Not California, where the third strike can be a misdemeanor. This because prosecutors have been granted the authority to elevate misdemeanors such as shoplifting ("Petty Theft") to felonies. These changeable by prosecutorial discretion crime statutes are known as "wobblers," and were recently before the U.S. Supreme Court. In lengthy decisions, following a growing federalism trend, the Justices essentially refused to become involved in judicial activism. Instead, they inferred that changes to these laws should be undertaken by the legislatures' of the states, not the judiciary.
In addition to the fundamental fairness in Three-Strikes law application problem, there is also the economic cost to society of keeping a shoplifter in prison for a minimum of 25 years at an approximate cost in excess of $30,000 per year per inmate. The exact cost number being shrouded in creative statistics is thought to be much higher for long term inmates due to increased security, and then high medical costs for aging inmates.
Presently, there are about 340 Three-Strikes inmates in California prisons whose third strikes was for "Petty Theft." To keep them in prison is a total taxpayer cost of ($30,000 x 340 = $10,200,000) Ten Million Two Hundred Thousand Dollars per year. To keep these 340 shoplifters in prison for 25 years will cost ($30,000 x 340 x 25 = $255,000,000), Two Hundred and Fifty Five Million Dollars total, or $750,000 dollars to keep each one for 25 years, and that is based on today's costs assuming that inflation does not increase costs.
There are probably many other Three-Strikes "Wobbler" convicted inmates, making the costs in the billions of dollars. Presently, there are about 7100 total Three-Strikes inmates in California prisons. That is a total taxpayer cost of $30,000 x 7100 = $213,000,000) Two Hundred and Thirteen Million Dollars per year. To keep these 7100 for 25 years costs ($30,000 x 7100 x 25 = $5,325,000,000) Five Billion Three Hundred and Twenty Five Million Dollars. And remember, the number of Three-Strikes inmates has a huge increases every year.
The real victim here is the taxpayer. Particularly in the case of shoplifters whose total cost in stolen merchandise amounts to only a few thousand dollars, but whose punishment costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Historically, prevention and rehabilitation have been shown to be far cheaper than the alternative, e.g., fire prevention is far cheaper than fire damage. The same is true with crime prevention through education and rehabilitation. California's education system should be the priority, not its prison system. The prison system should change its mission from punishment to rehabilitation.
Presently, with tight budget money, education is being denied funds in order to pay for Three-Strikes and other excessively long incarceration schemes. It is time for the taxpayer to demand the changes necessary to bring the system into a balance that will provide effective returns for the costs, fundamental fairness, crime prevention, rehabilitation, and severe punishment only to those truly deserving.
Inmate Tom Watson Shasta County Jail 1655 West Street Redding, CA 96001
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
