Why a former judge now supports sentencing reform

For years, California’s Three Strikes law was presented as a clear message to repeat offenders: a third serious conviction could bring a life sentence. The policy was designed around incapacitation and deterrence, yet its broad reach eventually placed many people behind bars for conduct that was neither violent nor serious.

A former California judge interviewed for this article once viewed severe sentencing as an essential safeguard for the public. From the bench, however, he saw how prior convictions, courtroom pressure, addiction, age, and unequal access to effective legal representation could shape a sentence. Over time, those experiences changed his view of what a fair and effective criminal justice system should accomplish.

His support for sentencing reform does not come from minimizing violent crime. It comes from distinguishing dangerous conduct from nonviolent offenses, preserving strong penalties for people who pose a genuine threat, and allowing courts to make decisions based on the full circumstances of a case.

What changed his perspective from the bench

Question: When did your view of the Three Strikes law begin to change?

Former Judge: “It was gradual. Early in my career, I believed the law gave courts an important tool for protecting communities. Then I began seeing defendants receive life terms after a third strike that involved a relatively low-level, nonviolent offense. The prior convictions mattered, but the current conduct often did not resemble the kind of crime people had in mind when they supported tough sentencing.”

He explained that judges work within statutory rules, even when a result feels disproportionate. A person appearing before the court is never just a case number, yet sentencing laws can encourage a narrow focus on criminal history. The judge may know that the defendant is older, has a substance-use disorder, has maintained family ties, or has made progress in treatment, but the available sentence may leave little room for those facts to matter.

“Sentencing is supposed to reflect accountability and public safety,” he said. “When the punishment becomes disconnected from the current offense, confidence in the system suffers. The community may see a life sentence, but it may not see justice.”

His experience also made him wary of simple claims that longer sentences automatically produce safer neighborhoods. Incapacitating a dangerous offender can protect the public, but extending extreme sentences to people who present a lower risk can consume prison resources without producing a proportional safety benefit.

The difference between serious danger and nonviolent conduct

The former judge supports the central distinction advanced by Proposition 36: life sentences should remain available for people whose current offense and criminal history demonstrate serious or violent danger, while nonviolent, non-serious offenses should not automatically trigger the harshest penalty.

That distinction recognizes that “repeat offender” is not a complete description of risk. Two people may have multiple convictions, yet their conduct, age, health, addiction history, and likelihood of reoffending can be entirely different. A sentencing policy that treats those cases as identical may be easy to administer, but it does not necessarily create the best public-safety outcome.

“Public safety requires judgment,” the former judge said. “It requires identifying who is likely to hurt someone and making sure that person cannot continue doing so. It also requires recognizing when a person’s record reflects persistent but nonviolent conduct that can be addressed through supervision, treatment, and a proportionate sentence.”

The reform approach does not erase prior convictions or excuse repeated lawbreaking. It changes how those convictions interact with a new offense. Prosecutors can still seek substantial punishment, and courts can still impose lengthy prison terms when the evidence supports them. The key change is that a nonviolent third strike does not automatically convert every case into a life-sentence case.

People researching how the law has affected defendants can review individual stories and profiles, which illustrate why a criminal record alone may not reveal the full human or legal context behind a sentence.

What Proposition 36 sought to accomplish

Proposition 36, the Three Strikes Reform Act approved by California voters in 2012, narrowed the circumstances in which a third strike could result in a sentence of 25 years to life. Generally, the current offense had to be serious or violent, with specific exceptions involving certain prior convictions and circumstances.

The measure also created a resentencing process for some people already serving life terms under the earlier law. Eligible individuals could petition the court to have their sentences reviewed. Resentencing was not automatic. A judge could deny relief if the person posed an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety, and the court could examine the person’s record, conduct in custody, and other relevant information.

The former judge emphasized that resentencing is a legal review, not a promise of release. A court may consider whether the person committed disciplinary violations in prison, participated in rehabilitation, accepted responsibility, or remains a significant risk. This safeguard is important because reform should be measured by both fairness and safety.

He also noted that public discussion often treats reform as a choice between compassion and protection. In practice, a carefully designed sentencing change can pursue both. It can preserve incarceration for people who commit violent crimes while reducing extreme sentences for people whose latest offense does not justify permanent imprisonment.

Why judicial experience matters in the debate

Former judges bring a particular perspective to sentencing reform because they have seen how legal rules operate in real courtrooms. They understand that a statute may appear neutral while producing sharply different results depending on the county, the prosecutor’s charging decisions, the defendant’s resources, and the quality of available treatment.

They also know that a sentence affects more than the person convicted. It affects children who lose a parent, families that must travel long distances to visit prison, victims who may want accountability without an excessive penalty, and taxpayers who fund decades of incarceration. These effects do not eliminate personal responsibility, but they belong in an honest evaluation of sentencing policy.

“Judges are asked to impose sentences that are lawful, consistent, and defensible,” he said. “When the law gives no meaningful way to weigh proportionality, judges can end up enforcing a result they would not choose if they had the full range of options.”

His position is shared by a range of criminal justice participants, including some law-enforcement officials, prosecutors, defense attorneys, victims’ advocates, and corrections professionals. Their reasons may differ. Some focus on prison overcrowding and costs; others focus on proportional punishment, rehabilitation, or improved allocation of public-safety resources. Their common point is that a policy can be firm without treating every repeat offense as proof that a person must remain imprisoned for life.

The public record of reform endorsements provides additional context on why people with varied backgrounds have supported changing the law while retaining strong consequences for serious and violent crime.

The fiscal and community dimensions

Long prison terms carry substantial costs. Housing, medical care, mental-health services, security, and transportation become increasingly expensive as incarcerated people age. Those expenses are especially significant when a life sentence is imposed for a nonviolent offense that might have been addressed through a shorter term, intensive supervision, or treatment.

The former judge cautioned against presenting cost savings as the sole reason for reform. “The budget argument is real, but it should not lead the conversation,” he said. “The first question is whether the punishment is proportionate and whether it improves safety. Once a policy meets that standard, responsible use of public funds becomes part of the discussion.”

Savings from reduced incarceration can support strategies with direct community benefits. These may include substance-use treatment, mental-health care, victim assistance, violence-prevention programs, probation services, and reentry support. Such investments can address conditions that contribute to repeated nonviolent offending, including unstable housing, untreated addiction, and a lack of employment opportunities.

A shorter sentence does not guarantee rehabilitation. It does create an opportunity for a person to return to the community under conditions that can be monitored and enforced. Effective reentry planning may include counseling, drug testing, housing assistance, job training, family support, and clear consequences for violations. The former judge views that structured transition as a public-safety responsibility rather than a concession.

What a balanced sentencing policy should preserve

Reform advocates and opponents often agree on more than political debate suggests. Both sides generally want victims protected, dangerous people incapacitated, and courts to impose consequences that command public confidence. The disagreement concerns how broadly a life sentence should apply and how much discretion courts should have.

The former judge believes a sound policy should preserve several principles:

• Serious and violent current offenses should receive severe penalties when the facts and criminal history justify them.
• Judges should be able to distinguish persistent violence from repeated nonviolent conduct.
• Resentencing should involve a careful public-safety assessment rather than an automatic reduction.
• People leaving prison should receive supervision and practical support that reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
• Data should be used to evaluate recidivism, victim impact, sentencing patterns, and financial outcomes over time.

He also supports transparent review. A reform law should be assessed through measurable outcomes, including whether violent crime is addressed effectively, whether eligible people are safely resentenced, and whether resources reach programs that reduce future harm. This approach avoids treating sentencing policy as an all-or-nothing argument.

“Changing a law is not the same as abandoning standards,” he said. “It means asking whether the standards are aimed at the right conduct and whether courts have enough flexibility to make sound decisions.”

What people seeking relief should understand

People serving a Three Strikes sentence may need a detailed review of their conviction history, current offense, sentence, prison record, and eligibility under the applicable law. Eligibility can depend on statutory exceptions and facts that are difficult to evaluate without legal assistance. A person should not assume that a nonviolent offense automatically qualifies for resentencing, just as a prior serious conviction does not answer every question by itself.

Families can help by gathering case documents, sentencing information, custody records, and details about rehabilitation or disciplinary history. Legal aid organizations, public defenders, and attorneys experienced in post-conviction matters may be able to explain whether a petition is available and what evidence a court may consider. The process is case-specific, and a court remains responsible for determining whether resentencing would create an unreasonable risk to public safety.

The former judge encourages people to view relief as a formal legal process rather than a political slogan. “A petition should present facts, law, and a realistic plan,” he said. “The strongest request explains why the sentence is covered by the reform, why the person has changed, and how the community will be protected.”

His shift from supporting broad three-strikes penalties to supporting targeted reform reflects a broader lesson: sentencing rules should be judged by the results they produce. A system can hold people accountable while rejecting punishments that are excessive for the conduct at issue. It can protect the public while leaving room for rehabilitation, proportionality, and informed judicial review.

For updates on California sentencing reform and resources connected with the Three Strikes debate, follow the Committee for Three Strikes Reform’s work, examine the legal information available through its website, and share accurate information with families, advocates, and community organizations. Public understanding helps ensure that future sentencing policy reflects both accountability and a practical commitment to safer communities.