Three Strikes, Stem Cells and Gambling

Your editorial, “Vote for Three-Strikes Reform” (Oct. 5), makes uncommon sense. The law was a rush to judgment enacted in the heat of the moment. Those who show a pattern of criminality do need specialized attention. That is why we have judges and juries to treat each case as individual and different. Mandatory three-strikes sentencing is really unconstitutional. It is cruel and unusual punishment.

Ted Lepon

Los Angeles

*

I applaud your stand for endorsing Proposition 66 to reform the three-strikes law. I can separate a violent or serious crime against me, such as a burglary of my residence while I am home, and a burglary against my “stuff,” which would still engender prison time. Perhaps your stuff is worth someone’s life. My stuff isn’t.

Donald Kessler

Twain Harte, Calif.

*

As a police officer, I can only hope that the residents of California will be wise enough to vote down Proposition 66. I truly believe that even the proposition’s authors and proponents aren’t naive enough to think that those criminals who received 25-year sentences for crimes such as shoplifting just happened to get caught the one time they strayed from the straight and narrow.

The more likely truth is that almost every recipient of a third-strike sentence committed numerous crimes without getting caught.

Should Proposition 66 pass, law-abiding Californians should take some solace in the fact that most career criminals aren’t bright enough to stay out of jail. I seriously doubt the career criminals who will be affected by a changed three-strikes law will have a sudden epiphany and become law-abiding, positive contributors to society.

They’ll still get arrested and end up serving five sentences of five years each, or eight sentences of three years each for their various crimes and/or probation or parole violations. Either way, they’ll end up serving 25 or so years in prison, where they belong.

Jim Valencia

Chino Hills

*

Proposition 62, if passed, would harshly curtail voter choice and severely restrict freedom of political expression by all parties. By limiting the general election candidates to the top two vote-getters from the preceding primary, we would be silencing large segments of the community, cutting across varied political persuasions.

The Democrats and the Republicans, in addition to the third parties, stand to be silenced as well if the opposing major party can produce two top vote-getters. This does not enhance democracy or accountability; it compromises and diminishes it. The only ones who will gain from this proposal are the moneyed interests. Please urge your readers to vote no on Prop. 62.

Linda Piera-Avila

Santa Monica

*

Proposition 68 doesn’t stop Indian gaming; it just requires tribes to pay to the state a fair share of the profits, 25%, on par with how other states tax Indian gaming. This is voluntary, and if they don’t agree to pay their fair share, they must simply face a little American-style competition in the form of other gaming.

Bernard Lehrer

Ventura

*

Continuing to portray the controversy over Proposition 71, which would fund stem-cell research, as a conflict between religious and secular forces ignores a growing critique from pro-choice, liberal and progressive constituents.

The Pro-Choice Alliance Against Prop. 71 supports embryo stem-cell research, in stark contrast to the Catholic Church and other conservatives. But we oppose the proposition because it is a bad law that fails to guarantee the safeguards, transparency and scientific flexibility necessary to effectively move embryonic stem-cell research forward.

Susan Berke Fogel

Van Nuys

*

As the parent of a 5-year-old daughter with Type 1 diabetes, I wish to voice my support for Proposition 71 to support stem-cell research.

California has a long history of leading the nation in many fields. Today, Proposition 71 represents an opportunity for voters to take part in this innovation and open a path of hope for millions of people suffering disease all over the world. Let us continue to lead the nation in setting an example of the good that Americans can do for the world. We must begin to address the growing threat that such conditions as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes, autism, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s represent to our overburdened healthcare system.

Today, the majority of the scientific community believes embryonic stem-cell research is a promising potential path to medical breakthroughs. A vote against Proposition 71 is a roadblock to potential medical breakthroughs and is in opposition to some of the best scientific minds of our time.

Voting yes on Proposition 71 is the moral, humane thing to do.

Dennis Crispin

Thousand Oaks