Comments on the floor of the House of Representatives by Rep. Roy Takumi in opposition to S.B. 2260, a "three strikes" bill.

Floor Remarks in Opposition to S.B. 2260, S.D. 1, H.D. 1, C.D. 1 Relating to Sentencing Representative Roy Takumi Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition. There’s no doubt that the community is alarmed about crime, and with good reason. Our crime rate is unacceptably high relative to other nations, and many of our residents feel like prisoners in their own homes, afraid to venture out for fear of becoming another statistic. The question is what do we do about it? The problem with this bill is that to avoid being accused of being soft on crime, we go soft in the head. I suppose I could go on about how violent crime is going down in our state even without this bill or how we are 41st in the nation in violent crime. Or I guess I could talk about how other states who are considering repealing their mandatory sentencing laws because it’s not working. But in the interest of time, let me state briefly some of the conceptual and specific reasons why this measure falls short of its intent. First, it doesn’t work. While California is always cited as the reason why we should do this, let’s look at the facts. New York, not California, showed the sharpest decline in crime during the 1990s when “three strikes” laws were at its height. Furthermore, within California, counties that aggressively enforce the law "had no greater declines in crime than did counties that used it far more sparingly." (For example, one study found that crime dropped by 21.3 percent in the six most lenient "three strikes" counties, compared to a 12.7 percent drop in the toughest counties.) And, by the way, the measure before us doesn’t allow county prosecutors any discretion as California does. Secondly, it’s not new. We already have in this state enhanced sentencing laws that enables judges to impose stiffer sentences for repeat offenders. Are we saying this hasn’t worked? So who will be caught up in this “three strikes” law? It will be people like James Allen in California who was convicted of petty theft in 1998 when he stole hair oil worth $2.74 from a drugstore. However, since he threw a couple of punches at a security guard while trying to run away, he was also convicted of robbery, a violent felony. For this and his previous convictions for burglary, he is serving 35 years. I firmly believe that if you do the crime, you do the time but the time has to fit the crime. Third, it takes away the discretion of judges and the Paroling Authority to weigh each case on its merits. We end up with a one-size-fits-all approach to crime. Fourth, it ignores the existence of racism and classism in our society. Do we really believe that the criminal justice system operates completely without bias as to the defendant’s race? Look at California where African Americans, while comprising seven percent of the population, are 44 percent of those impacted by their three strikes law. Look at Hawaii, where native Hawaiians are less than ten percent of the population but over 34 percent of the prison population. Do we really believe that the quality of legal representation in this country is equal irrespective of your ability to pay? I guarantee you that the executives at Enron are not being defended by an overworked, underpaid public defender. Fifth, the financial costs. The Lingle-Aiona administration says that they have been pushing this measure for three years. If so, why hasn’t a study been done as we do on many other issues to show the eventual cost, impact and effectiveness of such a law? The measure assumes that there are no long-term costs relative to short-term benefit. How much of a threat to society is a 65-year-old prisoner who committed a burglary 25 years ago? Less than one percent of violent crimes are committed by those over 60 years of age. What will be the eventual cost of a geriatric long-term care facility behind bars where it costs three times more to house an elderly offender? Sixth, the abrogation of states’ rights. This measure counts as a “strike” any felony conviction from any other state and the federal courts. This is based upon the dubious conclusion that every conviction is valid and that we accept it on its face. This is why Louisiana modified their law so that any conviction outside of the state does not automatically trigger the law. Let’s take a hypothetical example. An all-White jury convicts an African-American male of two felonies twenty years ago in Mississippi. He moves to Hawaii and is convicted of burglary. How certain are we that the prior convictions were warranted and were free from bias? How does his attorney secure the records and transcripts from this long ago trial? More importantly, why would we rely upon the criminal justice system in Mississippi to dictate what we should do in our state? Seventh, there is no provision for a humanitarian release. Currently, the Paroling Authority has the ability to release a long-term prisoner who is suffering from, say, terminal cancer even though the term has not been served. This bill does not allow such a prisoner who poses no threat to society to be released ostensibly to show that we are “tough” on crime. It’s not about getting tough on crime; it’s about getting smart on crime. We know that the typical offenders in our prisons are disproportionately males, native Hawaiians, poor, unemployed, uneducated, and substance abusers. This by no means excuses their crime but it gives us an insight that explains why many are in prison. It compels us to realize that unless we get at the root causes of crime; there is no solution in sight except building more and more prisons. As it is, we already imprison over a million people in this country, a rate higher than any industrialized nation. We should be expanding programs like the BEST program on Maui or using models like the Delancey Street (which started in San Francisco) program where after staying an average of four years, not 30 years in prison, over 14,000 former felons and substance abusers are now successful taxpaying citizens. Instead of 1.2 million tax dollars per prisoner for 30 years, they have done it at no cost to the taxpayers. Here’s the exquisite irony. Do we want to end up like California, once the envy of the nation for their higher education system, that now spends more on their prisons than on their public colleges and universities? Instead of funding the schoolhouse, we end up funding the jailhouse. And the more we pour into our prison system, the less we fund our schools and therefore end up having to fund even more for prisons. The measure before us merely moves us further down this path and does little to move us to more effective ways of protecting the community. Thank you.