Discretion in Sentencing

In opposition to the three-strikes law, Keith Morgan (Voices, Dec. 11) states: “Judges should have sentencing discretion. They should be able to look at each situation . . . and decide if the current offense is serious enough for life without parole. This law takes that away from them.”

Right church; wrong pew. Judges have sentencing discretion in third-strike cases. They were given that discretion in 1996 by the Romero decision and other appellate court decisions that followed.

The problem is getting judges to use that discretion in appropriate cases--something that is clearly not being done, at least by the majority of Superior Court judges in Los Angeles County.

The Los Angeles County district attorney’s office wields immense power when it comes to putting pressure on judges to make rulings that carry out this theme of being “tough on crime.”

Very few judges these days have the courage to make decisions that they know in their hearts are the correct ones but they are still afraid to make, due to that oh-so-powerful force known as self-interest.

MICHAEL R. COGHLAN

Criminal Defense Attorney

South Pasadena

*

When will our society quit being so punitive? It’s an addiction that needs treatment--and the treatment is clear thinking. It irritates me when people like Mike Rey-nolds, co-author of the three-strikes law, simply claims his law has reduced crime, in spite of evidence to the contrary (Voices, Dec. 11). Then he says he didn’t do it to be vengeful. Well, what else is it when it doesn’t just put away people convicted of three violent felonies, but just three felonies, which can be anything from drugs (another societal problem being treated punitively) or theft to murder. Why can’t we have a goal of justice? Let the punishment fit the crime.

We need a rational approach to justice, punishment, crime prevention and rehabilitation.

RON ROBERTSON

Manhattan Beach

*

The introduction to your Voices column confuses the issue by noting the UC study that found no evidence that the three-strikes law is a deterrence. The law’s primary purpose is crime prevention. The law was a reaction to the lack of effective crime deterrence, particularly of repeat crime.

Asking whether it works, therefore, should not concern itself with deterrence, but with prevention. Of course, it so obviously prevents crime, it is almost not worth asking the question. A criminal in jail is effectively prevented from continuing to hurt others.

Questions as to fairness or perhaps improving on the law may be worth discussion, but using deterrence to evaluate it is a misunderstanding at best, or a red herring at worst.

BOB McVERRY

Laguna Hills