Why a Prosecutor Voted Yes on Proposition 36

A prosecutor’s first responsibility is public safety. That means protecting victims, holding dangerous people accountable, and making sure serious crimes receive serious consequences. It also means examining whether a law is drawing the right line between a genuine threat to the community and a person whose latest offense does not justify spending the rest of his or her life in prison.

That is why I voted yes on Proposition 36. California’s Three Strikes law was created to respond firmly to repeat serious and violent offenders. Its central purpose remains sound: someone who repeatedly commits grave crimes should face a severe sentence. The problem was that the original law could impose a life term when the third offense was neither serious nor violent.

Proposition 36 preserved the strongest penalties for dangerous criminals while giving courts a more rational way to handle lower-level third strikes. This was a public-safety reform, a fairness reform, and a responsible use of taxpayer money. It asked California to punish conduct in proportion to its harm without abandoning accountability.

A Prosecutor’s Duty Goes Beyond Winning Cases

A prosecutor has considerable power over the lives of defendants, victims, and families. That power must be used with judgment. A conviction is not automatically a measure of justice if the sentence is wildly disconnected from the conduct, the person’s criminal history, or the risk that person presents.

The original Three Strikes framework treated a third felony as potentially equal to a third serious or violent felony. That distinction mattered. A person whose prior record included serious crimes could receive a life sentence after a nonviolent third offense, even when the latest conduct did not involve physical injury, a weapon, or a credible threat to public safety.

In court, prosecutors routinely make distinctions. We separate a deliberate act of violence from a property offense. We consider the difference between a predatory criminal and someone whose record reflects addiction, instability, or repeated low-level conduct. Prop 36 brought that basic prosecutorial judgment into sentencing law.

The measure did not erase consequences. It required a closer look at the facts. A person with a history of serious or violent strikes could still face a lengthy sentence, and judges retained authority to deny relief when an offender posed an unreasonable danger.

Restoring Proportionality To Three Strikes

Before reform, California’s law could produce outcomes that weakened public confidence. A life sentence for a nonviolent third strike made it harder to explain what the law was designed to accomplish. The public understood the need to incapacitate violent repeat offenders, yet many people questioned whether every third felony should trigger the same punishment.

Prop 36 narrowed the life-term provision so that a third strike generally had to be serious or violent, subject to important exceptions. Those exceptions addressed situations in which a defendant’s prior convictions or current conduct demonstrated a heightened risk. The reform therefore focused the harshest punishment on the people most likely to cause grave harm.

This approach recognizes that criminal history is important, but it is not the only fact that matters. The current offense tells us what happened now. Prior convictions tell us about patterns and risk. A sound sentence considers both rather than allowing one label to determine everything.

The reform also created a path for some people already serving life sentences for qualifying nonserious, nonviolent third strikes to seek resentencing. That process was not automatic release. Courts reviewed individual records, heard from prosecutors, and considered whether resentencing would create an unreasonable danger to the public.

Public Safety Requires Evidence And Judgment

Opponents of sentencing reform often suggest that any reduction in a prison term means society is being asked to tolerate crime. That argument confuses a narrower sentence with no sentence. Prop 36 retained incarceration, supervision, and substantial penalties for people who committed serious offenses or presented a continuing danger.

The relevant question is whether the law places the right people behind bars for the right reasons. A violent robber, sexual predator, or repeat home invader should be treated very differently from a person whose third felony involved a nonviolent property or drug offense. A justice system that makes that distinction can concentrate prison resources on the people who require incapacitation most.

Public safety also includes the safety of victims, witnesses, and neighborhoods from future violence. Effective prosecution depends on credibility. When residents believe that sentencing rules are arbitrary, they may become less willing to report crimes or cooperate with investigators. A measured Three Strikes law can strengthen confidence by showing that serious punishment is reserved for serious danger.

Accounts of extreme cases helped shape public debate about repeat-offender sentencing, yet individual stories should be tested against the actual legal question. The record of California’s Three Strikes stories illustrates why prosecutors must distinguish frightening violent conduct from cases involving nonviolent third strikes before deciding what a life sentence accomplishes.

Law Enforcement Can Support Targeted Reform

A yes vote did not require rejecting law enforcement. Prosecutors, police leaders, corrections professionals, and victims’ advocates can support strong sentencing while recognizing that a statute may be too broad. The question is not whether officers and prosecutors take repeat crime seriously. The question is whether the law helps them identify and incapacitate the most dangerous offenders.

Many law enforcement leaders understood that credibility matters in criminal justice. When every third felony is treated as if it carries the same risk, the law can become difficult to defend in courtrooms and communities. A more targeted statute gives prosecutors a stronger case for severe punishment when the facts truly warrant it.

The public discussion around reform included support from law enforcement leaders, reflecting a practical point: public safety and sentencing proportionality are compatible. Officers want dangerous people stopped. They also rely on laws that judges, juries, victims, and the public can understand.

A prosecutor’s endorsement of Prop 36 therefore came from professional experience, not leniency. Every day in the justice system reveals differences among defendants that broad sentencing formulas can overlook. Good policy gives decision-makers room to account for those differences while preserving firm consequences.

Responsible Reform Protects Public Resources

California spends substantial sums to incarcerate people for long periods. Prison may be necessary for someone who poses a serious danger, but a life term is an expensive response when the latest offense is nonviolent and the person could be safely managed through a different sentence or supervision plan.

Reducing unnecessary life terms can make room for investments that support prevention and enforcement. Resources can help investigate violent crime, improve victim services, expand substance-use treatment, strengthen reentry supervision, and support local programs that reduce repeat offending. A correctional budget should be measured by the safety it produces, not simply by the number of years imposed.

Fiscal responsibility is not a substitute for justice. A person should never receive a shorter sentence merely because prison is expensive. The proper sequence is to determine the appropriate level of punishment and then use public funds wisely. Prop 36 improved that process by limiting automatic life sentences for qualifying nonviolent third strikes.

Resentencing also gave courts an opportunity to evaluate conduct over time. Some people eligible for review had already served many years, completed rehabilitative programs, or aged out of the period when their risk was highest. Others could be denied relief if their records showed that release would endanger the community. That individualized review is more defensible than a blanket rule.

Data Should Guide The Debate

Policy arguments about Three Strikes often rely on predictions: reform will supposedly unleash dangerous offenders, or severe sentences will supposedly eliminate crime. Neither claim should replace evidence. Prosecutors are trained to distinguish allegations from proof, and sentencing policy deserves the same discipline.

The experience after Prop 36 challenged several assumptions about reform. Eligibility was narrower than many critics suggested, resentencing required judicial review, and public safety could be evaluated through arrest, conviction, and recidivism information. The relevant evidence should be examined carefully, including the types of offenses involved and the conditions imposed after release.

Data cannot answer every moral question, but it can expose exaggerated claims. Reviews of common Prop 36 myths help clarify what the measure changed, what it left in place, and why a targeted sentencing rule is different from an absence of accountability.

A prosecutor’s perspective values facts over slogans. If a person commits a new violent offense, the response should be swift and severe. If a person commits a qualifying nonviolent offense after prior convictions, the response should still be meaningful, yet the court should have authority to determine whether a life sentence is necessary to protect the public.

A Better Standard For Accountability

The strongest argument for Prop 36 is that it aligned punishment with risk. It preserved the basic promise of Three Strikes—repeat serious and violent criminals face serious prison terms—while correcting a feature that could produce excessive sentences for nonviolent conduct.

That balance matters to victims. Victims deserve a justice system that takes their harm seriously and uses its authority effectively. They also deserve a system whose decisions are credible. A punishment that appears arbitrary can overshadow the underlying offense and make it harder for communities to believe that courts are delivering justice.

The reform also respects the role of judges. Sentencing requires attention to facts that a statute cannot fully predict: the circumstances of the offense, the defendant’s conduct in custody, prior rehabilitation efforts, age, mental health, and the likelihood of future harm. Judicial review does not guarantee leniency; it creates accountability for the decision.

Practical priorities for prosecutors, courts, and communities include:

• Keep life sentences available for serious and violent repeat offenders who pose a continuing threat.
• Review nonviolent third-strike cases individually rather than relying on an automatic punishment.
• Use reliable criminal justice data to assess recidivism, victim safety, and the results of resentencing.
• Direct savings toward investigations, victim assistance, treatment, supervision, and violence prevention.
• Explain sentencing decisions clearly so the public can distinguish reform from reduced accountability.

I voted yes because justice requires both firmness and proportion. California can protect its neighborhoods, honor victims, and impose severe consequences on dangerous criminals without treating every third felony as proof that a person must die in prison. Prop 36 moved the law closer to that standard.

Support informed Three Strikes reform by reviewing the evidence, sharing accurate information with your community, and signing up for updates from the Committee for Three Strikes Reform. A focused sentencing law is strongest when the public understands what it protects, whom it holds accountable, and why proportionality makes public safety more durable.