Carrick's Views on Three Strikes

By Roger Carrick

That said, the current three strikes law permits the District Attorney to exercise discretion in certain areas, and I would institute a policy that requires a careful evaluation of each case, not a blanket charging mandate, to guide the exercise of that discretion. For example, I generally think it is not a good idea, absent compelling evidence to the contrary, to charge simple drug possession as a third strike. In that regard I think SB 1652 by Assembly member Jackie Goldberg was a good idea for amending the three strikes law, since we should be trying to harmonize the goals of Proposition 36 with the three strikes law in terms of rehabilitation versus punishment for illegal drug use.
The exercise of discretion requires written guidelines, however, and I think issues like the degree of seriousness of the defendant's earlier record, the seriousness of the current charge (the possible 3rd strike), the time between the current offense and the earlier felonies, the age of the offender and possibility for reform, and professional predictions about the future dangerousness of the offender, should be relevant guidelines (much as these are commonly used by a trial judge in exercising sentencing discretion under Penal Code 190.3/first degree murder, for example, since a 3rd strike has similar implications) for the exercise of discretion in charging third strikes.
Second, my goal would be to see the Los Angeles County District Attorney's office look generally at charging third strikes only where a serious or violent felony constituted the proposed 3rd strike. There may be cases where a non-violent felony would prompt a 3rd strike allegation (referencing again the discretion/guidelines I noted above), but that case would require a compelling argument (e.g., I would always look hard at alleged crimes that affect children) to depart from my general policy.
Third, my goal with regard to juveniles would be to refrain from over-charging on wobblers for second or third strikes, using the discretion/guidelines I noted above. Rather, we should be looking at a juvenile justice policy that tries very hard, in concert with other public entities (i.e., Dept. of Social Services and related juvenile welfare programs), as well as private sector efforts (i.e., families, anti-gang/juvenile support groups; faith-based rehab programs, etc.), to craft a punishment/rehabilitation program to make our very best efforts to rescue juveniles before they become hard core, career criminals worthy of a third strike.
More generally, I have called for, and would institute, a "family-oriented" prosecution policy, one that would revamp our information systems to make sure that the prosecutor, defense and judge have access to all of the information relevant to the impact of a prosecution on the entire family, including the defendant, before both charging decisions and sentencing decisions are made. Especially in the context of three strikes, we must reform our system, which collects so much useful information on both the defendant and that person's family situation, but which never collates or analyses that information for this purpose -- to inform the prosecution/sentencing process with the "family" implications of charging or sentencing decisions. By the use of modern computing and database technologies, we can both inform the process with regard to the past, not only in its negative details (e.g, the enumeration and evaluation of prior allegations and/or convictions), but also the very useful aspects of the broader family past and present to evaluate and implement alternative strategies for punishment and rehabilitation. We must be smarter, not more vindictive, if we genuinely want to achieve our collective goal of a safer, saner world.