I have yet another Proposition for you.  Prop 36.

It's a simple concept.  Three strikes and you're out.  Commit a third felony of any kind, with two prior "serious" felonies already on your record and you go to prison for a mandatory 25 year to life sentence.  Get the habitual felons off the street once and for all.

But some object to this.  They cite a particular case where a criminal with two violent felonies already on his record got a three strikes sentence for stealing a slice of pizza.  Jerry Williams was on the Redondo Beach Pier in 1994 when he decided he wanted some pizza.  He later told police it was the result of a game of "Truth or Dare" with family members that led to him stealing the pizza.  He said he never even ate it, just threw it into the ocean.

However, he terrorized the four children who were trying to just enjoy eating a pizza while on the Pier.  He had four prior felony convictions, robbery, attempted robbery, drug possession and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle (that's the reduced charge from car theft).  He should have been charged in the pizza case with theft by intimidation.

The issue here is that many believe that a third strike should be a violent or serious felony in order to send someone away for 25 years to life.  There's an argument to be made for that position.

The purpose of Proposition 36 is to ensure that third strikes are only given out for serious or violent felonies.  That those who were sentenced to a third strike sentence for a non-serious, non-violent felony have their sentence reduced.

Someone who has two strikes against them already needs to go out of their way, to go above and beyond to ensure there isn't any chance of their being charged with a felony crime.  That's a logical position as well.

I take this view.  Someone who has two violent felonies, two serious felonies, or any combination of these that make two strikes should face serious consequence if charged with and convicted of a third felony.   But we elect judges to exercise discretion and the current law doesn't permit discretion.  We need to pass a new Proposition, but not this one.  One that gives judges discretion in cases where a third strike isn't serious or violent, but mandates the three strike sentence for someone who has two felony convictions that are serious or violent in nature already and gets convicted of a third violent or serious felony.  Give judges discretion in cases where it is warranted and mandate these life sentences where they are called for.

I'm voting NO on Prop 36 because, while there is a problem with the three strikes rule as presently constituted, it doesn't solve the real problem.  I'll wait for a better solution and let lawyers and judges work to find ways to be lenient where leniency is warranted for these felons.  Someone will eventually offer a workable, realistic solution to this issue.

All I ask is that you educate yourself on the issue and vote your conscience.