In a statement, Gascón’s office said the June ruling by a three-judge panel of the California Second District Court of Appeal requiring prosecutors to file such allegations “sets a dangerous precedent.”
“The court is effectively taking the charging decision out of the prosecutor’s hands — the core function of a prosecutor’s office,” according to the statement from the D.A.’s Office. “The decision also forces prosecutors around California to ignore important research that shows longer prison sentences do not lead to increased public safety and to ignore the unique factors of each individual case that militate against using strikes.”
The appeals court ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, the organization that represents Gascón’s own prosecutors. The lawsuit challenged directives Gascón issued the day he took office in December 2020.
Last year, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant ruled largely in favor of the association, saying Gascón cannot issue a blanket order telling prosecutors to ignore laws the ADDA contends were designed to protect the public, including three-strike allegations and sentencing enhancements.
A three-judge panel of the California Second District Court of Appeal largely agreed in a 71-page ruling last month, stating in part that “voters and the Legislature created a duty, enforceable in mandamus, that requires prosecutors to plead prior serious or violent felony convictions to ensure the alternative sentencing scheme created by the three strikes law applies to repeat offenders.”
Gascón had argued that he has discretion of whether to allege prior convictions or sentencing enhancements. The appeals court panel ruled, however, “The district attorney overstates his authority. He is an elected official who must comply with the law, not a sovereign with absolute, unreviewable discretion.”
In Thursday’s statement, the District Attorney’s Office contended the three-strikes law “imposes draconian penalties on defendants who were previously convicted of certain prior felonies.”
“These policies increase recidivism rates, have little-to-no deterrent effect and keep people in prison long after they pose any safety risk to their community,” according to the D.A.’s Office. “The also disproportionately affect minorities — almost 93% of people sent to prison from Los Angeles County are Black people and people of color.”
Gascón issued a series of special directives upon taking office, with many of them raising the ire of some law enforcement officials who accused him of being soft on crime. Gascón, who was elected on a progressive agenda, has said he had a mandate from the people who wanted to see changes in the justice system, moving away from excessively long prison sentences that he claims have done little to reduce crime or act as a deterrent.
Gascón is facing a second recall effort, with the Registrar- Recorder/County Clerk’s Office currently reviewing the validity of more than 715,000 petition signatures to determine if enough of them are valid to force a recall election.
–
Iconoclast says
This clown is begging to be recalled. The D.A. is prosecutor not public defender, for Heavens’ sake!
Joanne Fern says
This country is a republic. We the voters are the deciding factor on our crime laws.
I am sorry that 93% of the criminals are black and keep doing crimes that get them these strikes in their records and put them away for longer sentences. So maybe the black community will wake up and stop doing crimes that get them into trouble. However once a trouble maker is identified you must give them the conquences of their actions. Which is why we voted on the three strikes law. When you have a child you must teach them right from wrong. When you as a parent have done your job and these people grow up and ignore the law over and over again then you must give them the adult version of time out. Which is jail time. Because just like a disobedience child you have to be consistent with putting them back in the time out chair. Which is exactly what the three strikes law provides.
Tim Scott says
Do you think that crime rates have gone down since three strikes was implemented?
If so, do you have any evidence of that?
If not, do you think that three strikes has “worked”?
smh says
if you truly believe that these 93% are all criminals your sadly mistaken you have know concept on how the 3 strike law works. well let me say this. I am a 1 striker of these three strike laws i am not black nor am i white. but in my past i easily have other felonies that would certainly qualify for strikes. you see my uncle who is doing life in prison was not a repeat offender as you want to say. in the 80’s he was convicted of a felony GBI and a felony assualt did his time on those gets out. living life to the best of his abilities because society in all its infinit wisdom has created laws and other rulings to make it dam near impossible for a convicted felon to intergrate back into society smoothly. so as the years go by 2015 my uncle gets into a scuffel and yes that is all it was not even a punch thrown. the guy was pushed triped over his feet hit his head was hospitalized with a fractured skull. my uncle was brought up and felony GBI with a prior plus a prior assualt they took the 2 felonies from the 80’s turned them into strikes gave him a viloent third strike and gave him life in prison. so what i am trying to say is that this law is twisted they are able to go into your past pull felonies at will and turn them into strikes. so please dont say that these 93% black, brown, yellow, purple what ever color you assume them to be are repeat over and over criminals. there are just as many white repeat offenders who do not fall victim to these “laws” why is that? please dont kid yourself and actually believe that the white population are one and done criminals. this number is unbelivable 93% of three strike lifers are people of color smh. many of these people on life sentences are in there late 60’s to late 70’s what is your reason for keeping them in jail? what danger does an elderly man or woman pose to society? they are costing tax payers millions of dollars to keep them in prison when they pose no danger to society. so if your kid does not behave lets say they are 7 and they just keep being bad in school, in public, with other relatives etc. are you gonna impose being grounded until there 18, are you gonna whip that but everyday until they are 18, are you gonna make them do hard labor until 18 probably not. so why sentence men and woman too life for crimes that does not warrant a life sentence? like murders, rapist, child molesters, people of that nature. do some research and find out how many of these three striker lifers are actually in there for true violent crimes or even a crime that warrants a life decision.