In the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, we held a hearing on SB 5295. I’m the Chair of the Committee and the prime sponsor of this bill, which would remove the crime of Robbery Second Degree (Rob 2) from the list of convictions that are considered "Strike" convictions. Three “strikes” and you’re out: the sentence is to life in prison without possibility of parole.

Washington State’s Three Strikes passed via an initiative in the mid-1990’s, and is the draconian in the nation. For the last decade, I’ve sponsored legislation to reform our Three Strikes law. I strongly believe that the level of harm that results in a Rob 2 does not merit a place on the Strikes list.

A person commits Rob 2 by unlawfully taking property using the threat of immediate force, violence, or fear of injury. The offense does not involve the actual use of a weapon or actual violence at all. Violence or use of a weapon would make the crime Rob 1, and I’m not suggesting we remove Rob 1 from the Strikes list.

Rob 2 often involves the "suggested" presence of a weapon – the hand-in-the-pocket-routine – but if a real weapon or anything that even resembles a weapon is even shown, much less used, then it's Rob 1. If the perpetrator possesses a firearm – even if it’s never used or even shown – the charge is appropriately Rob 1. That’s right, we’re putting men and women away for life for faking the presence of a gun by sticking their hand or a perfume bottle (in one case) in their pocket. And often the item or amount of cash they stole was of little value.

Don’t get me wrong. The criminal behavior remaining in Rob 2 is still somewhat dangerous -- so is almost every felony -- and my legislation doesn't change the sentence for Rob 2 convictions. It would still be considered a Class B felony, still ranked medium (4 on a scale of 1-16) in its seriousness level in the Sentencing Reform Act. With no prior offenses, it would fetch a sentence of 3 - 9 months; with one prior, 6 -12 months; and with two priors, 12 -14 months

There are currently 292 people serving a life sentence due to our Three Strikes law. About 48% of them, 139 prisoners, have one or more convictions for Rob 2 among their three “strikes”. The bill would allow them to be re-sentenced to a long but definite sentence under our usual sentencing laws.

Reforming our Three Strikes law will help us to achieve a balance between our security concerns and our fiscal responsibility. Those 292 inmates in for Life Without Parole under Three Strikes will be incarcerated long past the age at which many of them would present any danger at all to society. Many of these older folks could be – or are already – “rehabilitated” to the point of potentially being trustworthy members of society. We already have a geriatric wing at the Department of Corrections. We pay for medical care and prescription drugs for these folks, who often cost us two or three times more than the $31,000 average annual cost of the average inmate. In the coming decades, as these inmates accumulate and age, we can expect to pay hundreds of millions more for their keep, with no real added security.

Each year, the bill gains more and more support in the public and in the legislature. This year, there’s strong coalition of groups that support the bill. I believe our effort will be successful in the near future. But now, even with Governor Gregoire in office and a Democrat majority in the Senate and the House, there’s enough opposition to this type of legislation to almost insure that it won’t pass. There is an extraordinary amount of impassioned, knee-jerk opposition to any such changes. No matter how small the change is, when you say, “I want to amend the Three Strikes law,” many people hear, “I want to let all of the murderers and rapists out of prison.” Many legislators don’t want to appear to be “soft on crime,” because they think appearing “tough on crime” will get them re-elected.

It may take some time for us all to realize that being "smart on crime" is a lot more effective than appearing to be "tough." In the meantime, I believe that I have the votes to bring the bill out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but probably not enough to get a majority in the Senate. I assure you, I’ll keep on trying until this job is done.