I write in reply to the recent Des Moines Register editorial opposing passage of House File 2542, a bill that would provide longer sentences for those who commit three or more of certain types of offenses. I’m a volunteer lobbyist for organizations that support victims of crime and have supported variations of such bills.
I noted that the Register editorial board showed a great deal of sympathy towards offenders and taxpayers who might have to pay for new prisons. In it I saw very little sympathy towards the victims of violent criminals who, having had two chances to reform, want more chances. The question is “Chances to do what?”
I met with a young woman who had been brutally beaten by a boyfriend. When she reported the assault, she found out she was his fifth victim. He was arrested and convicted, and served a short sentence in prison. After his release there was a sixth victim. He was again incarcerated for a short time. Then there was a seventh victim. As I recall, it was the seventh who had part of her face bitten off. He served another short sentence but served it all without parole. The Parole Board would not allow early release because he is clearly a danger to others. He is now a free man.
Quoting the statistic the Register used from Sweden, 1% of the Swedish population accounted for 63% of the crime, in other words, by repeat offenders. It is for that reason that the prospect of new prisons is exaggerated. Repeat offenders will spend most of their adult lives in prison regardless of a three-strikes law. It’s just that with a three-strikes policy that time in prison will involve fewer victims. Under “three strikes” the habitual criminal will go through the overstretched court system three times instead of perhaps six or seven. From a taxpayer perspective the time in prison is the same but court costs would go down.
It is not like the offender is not given his or her rights. The offender lawyer gets to depose the victim in Iowa, though not in most states. The offender can have a jury trial. The decision can be appealed. The sentence can be appealed in what is called a post-conviction relief motion. Any offender can, after 10 years, request a commutation hearing and make the case that he or she has been a model prisoner and is no longer a threat to society. There is also the possibility of a pardon. A prisoner is not without rights or hope. In contrast, there is a Victim Bill of Rights, that allows for victim impact statements and respectful treatment, but with no enforcement provisions.
We could also lessen the burden of prison over-crowding by reviewing the need to incarcerate marijuana users. We could invest in low-income communities and youth programs. We could enhance diversion programs for low-level crimes of poverty such as writing bad checks. What we should not do is sacrifice potential victims in the interest of saving money.
I will grant that whether a person is a victim or offender often depends on when the system finds them. We hear the phrase, “Hurt people, hurt people.” There is truth to that, but there is another truth. Most “hurt people” do not become criminals. There is always a choice.
Karl Schilling is past president of the Iowa Organization for Victim Assistance and is a volunteer lobbyist for victims of crime. Contact at karlpegschilling@gmail.com.
This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Three-strikes law means fewer victims, not more prisoners | Opinion
Reporting by Karl Schilling, Guest columnist / Des Moines Register
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
