by TChris

Have voters finally grown weary of the "tough on crime" rhetoric that politicians have spewed mindlessly for the last quarter century? California may provide an answer as voters consider Proposition 66, a proposal to modify the state's extreme three-strikes law by limiting the "strikes" that trigger sentences of 25-to-life. The need for change is clear.

Currently, even crimes not defined as serious or violent can count as a third strike, leading to instances in which multiple offenders have received the maximum penalty for committing crimes like shoplifting or possessing small amounts of narcotics. Last year, the United States Supreme Court rejected constitutional challenges to sentences of 25 years without parole for a man who stole three golf clubs from a pro shop and 50 years without parole for another man for stealing children's videotapes from a Kmart store.

Prosecutors love the existing law. They say "they need that option to lock up dangerous criminals, even those caught for relatively minor crimes." But it should be a judge, not a prosecutor, who decides that an offender committing a minor crime deserves a lengthy sentence. California's law reflects an unhealthy trend to shift power from the judicial branch to the executive branch by allowing a prosecutor rather than a judge to decide whether an offender deserves harsh punishment.