Original Article Arizona toughens its three-strikes law Matthew Benson The Arizona Republic Apr. 24, 2006 12:00 AM Life is about to get considerably harder for Arizona's repeat felons. A newly minted three-strikes law in Arizona promises a life sentence with no possibility of pardon or parole for individuals convicted of three serious felonies. Even a governor's commute won't be possible until a three-strikes inmate has served 35 years in prison. The law, a result of Senate Bill 1444, is aimed at the worst of the worst: rapists, murderers, arsonists, terrorists and child molesters. They're the individuals, bill sponsor Sen. Barbara Leff said, who have exhausted any patience owed them by society. "We need this to make sure the most violent individuals are removed from society," said Leff, R-Paradise Valley. "There's worth in knowing they're going to be gone for life." Legislators, perhaps unwittingly, heaped the measure atop an existing three-strikes statute in Arizona. But the new law is stiffer, more specific and stipulates that felonies accrued in other states count toward the defendant's total. What happens in Vegas, in other words, counts against your Arizona three-strikes tally. But while Republican legislators ran the measure under the get-tough mantra, and Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano signed it into law, others question whether the effort is more about making political points than taking a bite out of crime. Three-strikes and other such mandatory sentencing is politically popular but ineffective and inflexible, critics say, tying the hands of judges and saddling states with an increasing number of lifelong inmates. "They make a great sound bite, but whether or not they're driven by good public policy is another question," said Laura Sager, national campaign director of Families Against Mandatory Minimums. "No two cases are alike. Judges should have discretion." "How much?" Three-strikes laws came into vogue in the mid-1990s as perception spread that softhearted judges were going easy on career criminals. Washington state passed the first version in 1993. California followed the next year with the broadest, and best known, three-strikes law to date. The idea was simple: Some criminals had exhibited such a history of heinous offenses that their sentencing warranted no additional look at mitigating factors, no judicial mercy. The idea caught fire, and roughly two dozen states and the federal government have some version of three-strikes legislation on the books. But it remains contentious. California's law is more loosely written and has drawn perhaps the most criticism. In that state, a life sentence can be triggered for a third-strike conviction of any felony, meaning some defendants have been sentenced to lengthy terms for relatively minor offenses. By 2004, nearly 43,000 California inmates were serving time under the three-strikes statute, making up more than a quarter of the total prison population. While Arizona's version is written much more narrowly, Democratic lawmakers largely opposed it. Sen. Bill Brotherton, D-Phoenix, pointed out that crimes, even serious ones, carry shades of severity that should make a difference in sentencing. Arson of an occupied structure or prison facility are crimes covered by the new statute, for example. But there's a difference, Brotherton argued, between tossing a Molotov cocktail into a home with the intent to kill, and burning the mattress in your jail cell because you're a troubled inmate. "Anyone in opposition to this is not saying these people shouldn't be punished," Brotherton said. "The issue is, 'How much?' " To that, when it comes to the crimes specified in this law, Napolitano answered "life." "This is narrowly enough crafted, she's comfortable enough to sign it," said her spokeswoman, Jeanine L'Ecuyer. "Those are some heinous crimes." Prisons as warehouses Heinous or not, Caroline Isaacs doesn't believe any crime warrants an automatic sentence. The director of the Arizona American Friends Service Committee considers mandatory sentencing a failed and often cruel experiment that is more about politics than justice. Society pays the bill, she said, through costs to feed and house inmates into old age and beyond, when they no longer pose a threat. "Arizona needs to rethink the whole concept of mandatory sentencing," said Isaacs, whose Tucson-based Quaker group does work on behalf of human rights issues. "You're just warehousing and forgetting about people." But Arizona's three-strikes law also has found an unlikely supporter. Howard Wine is a lawyer with the Pima County Public Defenders Office. Laws that mandate minimum sentencing tend to play in favor of the prosecution, making his job more difficult and weighting plea-bargains in the prosecution's favor. But Wine looks favorably upon the new Arizona law. It specifically targets the worst offenders, he said, and is worded to include only offenses committed on separate occasions. So a string of crimes committed during a one-day spree can't count as strikes one, two and three. "In comparison to other states, this is a very reasonable statute," Wine said. "This does really target the bad guys." And those are the guys Leff wants off the street. "These crimes are so severe and so violent, that it's in the public's best interest that the people be locked up," she said. Reach the reporter at matt.benson@arizonarepublic.com or (602) 444-4947.