John

Cooley Deceives Voters on Three Strikes

The L.A. Times quoted me as asserting that Steve Cooley believes “we should never be able to use a nonviolent crime as the third strike to put someone away,” and then claims that my criticism of Steve Cooley’s position on Three Strikes is a “deliberate mischaracterization of Cooley’s policy.”  Of course, we were talking about Steve’s efforts to eliminate the 25-to-life third strike that exists in current law.  Under legislation he proposed in 2005 (working closely with Democrat Senator Gloria Romero and Democrat San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris) and then, when that failed, an initiative he proposed in 2006 (working closely with Criminal Defense Attorney Brian Dunn, law partner of the late Johnny Cochran), the “Three Strikes Reform Act of 2006,” the 25-to-life sentence for a non-violent Third Strike conviction would have been eliminated, not only preventing that long sentence from being imposed for people convicted after the initiative’s adoption, but releasing convicted felons back on the streets because the new formula would have applied retroactively. Cooley’s position created so much friction with other District Attorneys in the state that Cooley was removed from the line of succession to become President of the California District Attorneys Association; he ultimately resigned from the group in a huff. Happily, Cooley’s ill-conceived initiative never made it to the ballot.

We also talked about Cooley’s policy that non-violent offenses be reviewed by supervising DAs before a third strike can be charged.  I understand the desire for prosecutorial discretion, and the ability that DAs currently have to exercise such discretion is what made Cooley’s 2006 initiative so ill-conceived.  But prosecutors in Cooley’s own office tell me that in practice, Cooley’s policy amounts to a virtual prohibition on ever bringing a third strike charge for a non-violent offense because the supervising DAs have been instructed by him not to approve third strike charges for non-violent crimes.  As I have been noting on the stump, that would be like refusing to use the tax code to put Al Capone away for a very long time, or refusing to put San Diego murderer/rapist John Gardner away for a 25-to-life sentence if he had been caught committing a “non-violent” third offense after his first two violent felonies.  My statement was not a mischaracterization of Cooley’s policy, deliberate or otherwise, but the truth.  When someone has already committed TWO violent felonies and is still not rehabilitated, we should not have to wait for a third violent crime.  The next crime, violent or not, proves he's not going to change and we need to protect people from him before the next person is killed or raped, not afterwards. That’s the reason for the tough Three Strikes law, adopted by the voters of this state. Cooley’s position on the 2006 initiative to undermine the Three Strikes Law was not even joined by our likely Democrat opponent, Kamala Harris, making it impossible for him to raise her initial opposition to Three strikes as an issue in the November general election if he becomes the Republican nominee. We can do better! John Eastman For Attorney General. As the L.A. Times itself recognizes, I have “intriguing credentials,” am an “original thinker and constitutional scholar” with “new ideas for how to organize and direct the attorney general’s office,” and I have “amassed an impressive record as Chapman’s dean.”  I’ve done more than that, of course—such as founding a constitutional litigation center that has participated in more than 50 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States over the past decade, protecting religious liberty, the freedom of speech and association, and property rights, and forcing that government operate within the limits of the authority actually delegated to it in the Constitution.  That’s the expertise we need in the office of Attorney General.