The Background

In 1992, 18-year-old Kimber Reynolds was attacked by two men who attempted to steal her purse outside a restaurant in Fresno. One of the men shot her in the head. She died 26 hours later. The  25-year-old shooter – who was killed shortly thereafter in a police standoff – was described by police as a hardcore drug user who had been repeatably jailed on gun and drug charges, and who just two months earlier had been released from state prison where he served a sentence for auto theft.

After his daughter’s death, Mike Reynolds began fighting for a statewide tough-on-crime policy to keep potentially violent criminals off the streets. His effort gained widespread support following the kidnapping, rape and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas just eighteen months later.

In 1994, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 184, known as the “Three Strikes and You’re Out Law,” which Reynolds helped author. In effect ever since, the law has significantly increased the length of prison sentences for second and third time offenders who had a serious or violent original conviction  Even if repeat convictions are minor – such as petty theft or drug possession – a second strike offense now results in double the normal prison term. A third strike gets a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life. Of the roughly 24 states with a three strikes type  law, California’s is widely considered the harshest.

Californians remain sharply divided over three strikes. Advocates like Mike Reynolds are quick to note the dramatic decrease in crime statewide since it was enacted: by 2004, the statewide violent crime rate had gone down by half.

But opponents argue that the law unfairly imprisons scores of low-level offenders for excessive periods at a huge expense to taxpayers. In the decade after the law’s passage, the state prison population increased by roughly thirty percent, and the prison budget skyrocketed. Today, of the more than 41,000 second and third strike inmates in California’s prisons, more than half are serving elongated sentences for non-violent crimes. Of these, more than 6,000 are for drug-related offenses.

All attempts to reform three strikes, including a ballot proposition in 2004 have failed. But on Nov. 6, California will again reconsider the issue, and vote on Proposition 36, a measure that which would significantly revise the three strikes law, resulting in shorter sentences for many non-violent, non-serious offenders.

The California Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that if Prop 36 passes, it will save California roughly $70 to $90 million annually. Opponents of the proposition, however, warn that doing so will severely compromise public safety.

Additional Multimedia Resources

three-part series, and interactive timeline on California’s three strikes law.

California has had a really tough time making up its mind about the death penalty. In 1872, the state authorized capital punishment in its penal code (until then, executions were generally conducted by county sheriffs). 23 years later, a guy named Jose Gabriel, convicted of murdering an elderly couple, was hung inside San Quentin Prison. That marked California’s first official execution at the hands of the state.

For the next 75-odd years, California executed nearly 500 inmates, four of them women.

And then things got really confusing.

In early 1972, the California Supreme Court ruled that the state’s death penalty law constituted cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the state’s constitution. But just nine months later, California voters approved a ballot initiative that amended the constitution to make capital punishment permissible.  A year later, the state passed legislation that actually made the death penalty mandatory for certain crimes. But once again, the state Supreme Court struck back, ruling that law unconstitutional as well.

Fast forward six years. In 1978, California voters approved Proposition 7 by a whopping 70 percent. The initiative not only reinstated the state’s death penalty, but also broadened the list of circumstances under which a convicted prisoner could receive a death sentence. It also increased prison terms for first and second degree murder.

And its this law that currently stands in California.

Over the last 34 years, the state has executed 13 prisoners (a 14th was convicted in California but executed in Missouri). The last execution – of Clarence Ray Allen – was back in January 2006. Currently 725 prisoners live on California’s death row .

Interestingly, many of Prop 34′s strongest advocates – including Jeanne Woodford, the former warden of San Quentin Prison, and Ron Briggs, the son of the state senator who led the effort to get the death penalty reinstated in 1978  – argue for repealing the death penalty largely on economic – not moral -  grounds.They contend that the current system is horribly inefficient and a financial burden to the already cash-strapped state. Due to the number of legal appeals and required long-term special supervision for death row inmates, the financial costs of executing a prisoner far outweigh that of life imprisonment.  Repealing the death penalty would save the state an estimated $100 million a year, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office.

But supporters of the death penalty – those in opposition to Prop 34 – argue that criminals convicted of the most heinous crimes deserve to be put to death. The death penalty deters future crime, many argue, and for the families and friends of victims, it is the only way that justice is truly served.

For more perspectives on this issue, listen to the following KQED and NPR radio stories. Also, read a list of strong arguments for and against the death penalty at procon.org.

About the filmmaker