Washblog

I am Stevan Dozier, sentenced to Life Without Parole under the 3 Strikes Law. The crime that I committed is Second Degree Robbery. I am not proud of the fact that 14 years ago I took a purse from a lady.

In 1993-94, I was not the same man that I am now. I won't bore you with a story of past substance abuse issues. I will tell you that during the 14 years I have now served, I've learned self worth and self respect as well as how to respect others.

I am redeemable. I truly regret the fact that I broke the law. During my incarceration, I have worked and repaid all financial restitution to the present and previous victims of my misbehavior.

Since 1994, many have stepped up to say the crime of Second Degree Robbery does not merit Life Without Parole. Many guards here in the prison say that regularly.

The Sentencing Guidelines Commission and several law makers have voiced the need to tune up the 3 Strikes law to ensure that only serious violent individuals receive Life Without Parole under the 3 Strikes Law. Various approaches have been tried only to be met by roadblocks created by misinformation and fear tactics. Yes, the Karl Rove/ George Bush play book is in use in Washington State.

Over the years, I have seen many 3 Strikers give up hope. I have seen rapists, murderers and armed criminals come and go. I've seen serial killers receive plea bargains for the exact sentence that I received for committing a non-armed, non-sexual offense.

I know public safety is very important. And I also believe all criminal behavior should be punished in a manner which is proportionate to the offense committed.

The new push of transition re-entry is long overdue. For many years, DOC (Washington Department of Corrections) was all about the warehouse approach. Sending people back to society armed only with a GED and little community resources is a recipe for recidivism.

Prior to my incarceration, I was only concerned with day to day and had no understanding of the political process. Over the years, I have seen lawmakers like Senator Adam Kline stand up and attempt to restore a slight level of proportionality into the sentencing equation.

Senator Kline has refused to be deterred by fear tactics and misinformation. Senator Kline has never advocated freeing Murderers or Armed Criminals.

At one time, Representative Al O'Brien stood as boldly as Senator Kline. In the last correspondence from Representative O'Brien he stated:

"There is not likely to be any change in the 3-Strikes Law until there is a public outcry."

My plea and the plea of my loved ones has not been for a "get out of jail free" card.  Our plea has been for lawmakers to restore some level of proportionality into the 3-Strikes sentencing.

I am going to close with thanks for Justice Works! and all organizations who feel that One Size Does NOT fit all.

For those who are on the fence I ask: Is it a wise investment of your tax dollars to over-incarcerate non-armed, low level offenders for life?

Thus far, my 14 years served has cost over 360,000 dollars. This does not include medical costs.

--I Am Redeemable...

Stevan Dozier

 

Let's Look At The Initiative
by Stevan Dozier

Over the years, the initiative process has become a business. 3-Strikes, I-593, $30 car tabs, and many more Tim Eyman creations.

Many of the "monetary" initiatives have been challenged in court and reversed for various reasons. In most court challenges to initiatives, the court finds the initiative unconstitutional and in violation of Article 2, Section 19. This is better known as the Single Subject Rule, which states: "No bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."

The Washington Supreme Court visited the 3-Strikes Initiative in 1996. The single subject rule of Article 2, Section 19 was raised () and the court ruled that the title to I-593 had one subject.

It has become quite clear that the court examines tax cutting initiatives in a different manner than non-monetary initiatives.

Article 2, Section 19 is quite clear and does not provide any allowance to sever the unconstitutional second subject contained in the text of the initiative from the title.

Justice should be weighed on the same scale, be it criminal or monetary.

1. Proportionality
   The Revised Code of Washington at RCW 9.94A.010 requires that punishment be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and commensurate with that given to others for similar crimes.  This law is a cornerstone of Washington's criminal justice system and 3-Strikes, as currently written, violates it.
2. Single Subject for Initiatives
   Stevan Dozier refers here to the 1996 Supreme Court case, 129 Wn.2d 736, STATE v. THORNE.  The text of the decision is available on LegalWA.org.
   The section referring to the single subject clause reads, in part, as follows:

   The Defendant argues that Initiative 593 violates article II, section 19 because it contains two distinct subjects: (1) provisions for life imprisonment for three-time "persistent offenders" convicted of most serious offenses, and (2) provisions making certain other offenders ineligible during mandatory minimum terms for any form of early release.

   Article II, section 19 provides that "[n]o bill shall embrace more than one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."

   The purposes of article II, section 19 are to (1) prevent "logrolling," or pushing legislation through by attaching it to other necessary or desirable legislation, and (2) assure that the members of the legislature and the public are generally aware of what is contained in proposed new laws. Flanders v. Morris, 88 Wn.2d 183, 187, 558 P.2d 769 (1977); Washington Fed'n of State Employees, 127 Wn.2d at 552...

   The ballot title of Initiative 593 states: Shall criminals who are convicted of "most serious offenses" on three occasions be sentenced to life in prison without parole?

   ...(I)n this case we need not decide whether the part of the Initiative which concerns early release is beyond the scope of the ballot title because the part of the law which is involved in the case before us now is clearly within the scope of the title of the Initiative. See, e.g., Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle v. O'Brien, 86 Wn.2d 339, 349, 544 P.2d 729 (1976); Daviscourt, 40 Wn. App. at 439-40 and cases cited therein; Power, Inc. v. Huntley, 39 Wn.2d 191, 200, 235 P.2d 173 (1951) (quoting Jackson v. State ex rel. South Bend Motor Bus Co., 194 Ind. 248, 259, 142 N.E. 423 (1924) ("if only one subject is embraced in the title, then any subject not expressed in the title that is embraced in the body of the act, may be rejected, and the part that is expressed in the title [should] be allowed to stand").]

3. Current Legislation
   Senate Bill 5349 would remove Robbery 2 from the list of 3-Strikes offenses.  According to the bill's fiscal note, the life sentences of 87 people would be reconsidered. This represents nearly a third of the 285 people now serving life sentences under Washington's 3-Strikes. Robbery 2 is the most common cause for incarceration under this law.

   Senate Bill 5964 initially proposed to exclude people who have committed only the crimes of Assault 2 and Robbery 2 from 3-Strikes sentences.  It has since been watered down to require the matter to be studied. SB 5964 is opposed by Washington Coalition of Crime Victim Advocates, which characterizes it, inaccurately, as "dropping Assault 2 and Robbery 2 from the list of three strikes offenses".

4. An upcoming review of some 3-Strikes cases?
   Senator Kline, who has for 10 years sponsored bills to reform 3-Strikes, told me at the 37th District Democrats meeting earlier this month that, at his urging, the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys has recently agreed to review a number of the early 3-Strikes cases and, if they conclude that it's merited, will recommend further review, perhaps judicial or state clemency.
5. Also see previous Washblog story: Life in Prison without Parole for Low-Violence Crimes: Can Washington Find Redemption?.