Twelve dollars may not seem like much in the grand scheme of things, but for Ronald Herrera, it was worth a lifetime. He was sentenced to 25 years to life last Thursday for stealing a bottle of wine, lip balm and breath spray from a Vons grocery store in Carpinteria, Calif.
Herrera, a so-called career criminal, is the latest victim of California's infamously unforgiving three-strikes law, whereby three felony convictions result in a life sentence if the prior acts were violent. Similar laws are on the books in 25 other states, enacted throughout the 1990s and designed to keep repeat offenders off the streets. What sets California's law apart from the rest, however, is the unequaled severity with which it meters out justice.
For California's 1994 "three strikes and you're out" law to apply, the third and final crime doesn't need to be a violent one, just a felony. Regrettably, this can include crimes that carry significantly lesser penalties when committed as a first offense.
Hence, there are a fair number of people like Herrera for whom the punishment clearly does not fit the crime.
Actually, California state officials put the number of nonviolent, third-strike offenders as high as 57 percent of the 7,000 some inmates incarcerated under the law. Of those, 644 were convicted of drug possession. There are 340 who, like Herrera, are in jail for petty theft. This is an inordinately high percentage of cases where criminals are being held accountable more for their past than the crime they are currently on trial for. So much for second chances.
Just to put things in perspective, consider that petty theft more often than not is treated as a misdemeanor in California and carries a punishment of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
To be fair, Ronald Herrera is a far cry from being a model citizen. He has a history of violence and serious felony convictions (17 to be exact), including armed robbery and rape. It is because of this past that Darryl Perlin, the prosecutor in Herrera's case, was so adamant in portraying Herrera as the archetypical criminal for whom the three-strikes law was made.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that Herrera and everyone in the same boat with him have done their time and paid their debt to society.
Proponents of California's harsh three-strikes law, ranging from local law enforcement to the White House, claim that those who fall victim to it are beyond hope for rehabilitation. While there does appear to be some merit to that argument, whatever value three-strikes legislation might have as a deterrent or benefit to society is lost when it results in a man's life being thrown away over the paltry sum of $12, no matter how reprehensible he may be.
In addition to the discrepancy between crime and punishment, it is also worth taking into account the cost of keeping nonviolent offenders in jail. With estimates for incarceration cost as high as $25,000 per year, one cannot help but wonder if that money could be better spent elsewhere.
There is a glimmer of hope on the horizon in the form of an impending ruling by the Supreme Court. The high court is currently hearing arguments brought by two victims of the California law. One made off with three children's videos and the other four golf clubs. Each received a life sentence. Still, Herrera looks to be getting the worst deal of the lot: He's in jail for the rest of his life because he had bad breath and chapped lips.
Scott Phillips is a journalism junior. Reach him at robert.phillips2@asu.edu.
