The shocking daylight carjacking murder of Los Angeles teenager Lily Burk has appalled millions of Californians and frightened parents in communities throughout the state. Inevitably, as the profile of the alleged murderer, Charlie Samuel, is revealed, California’s state and local law enforcement will be asked, “Could more have been done to prevent this crime?” or “Can more be done in the future to protect the public from individuals like the fifty-year-old Samuel?” Not if the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and legislative Democrats have their way.
Charlie Samuel is a habitual criminal. According to the Los Angeles Times, Samuel was convicted of 10 crimes between 1978 and 2009.
A preliminary examination of Samuel’s criminal history reveals that he has been convicted of home invasion robbery, two burglaries, a vehicle theft, and assorted theft and drug offenses. For many, this history would identify Samuel as the type of criminal for whom “Three Strikes” and other habitual offender laws were enacted.
Unfortunately, prison bureaucrats and many Democratic legislators read Charlie Samuel’s long criminal history and observe that most of his offenses were theft or drug related and conclude that he is a nonviolent offender. In fact, Samuel’s last felony offense for petty theft with a prior felony conviction in 2006 would, under a proposal now before the Legislature, be reduced to a misdemeanor. This and other proposals to turn felonies into misdemeanors in order to save money may be adopted next month.
If these proposals had been enacted before 2006, Samuel’s last theft conviction could not have sent him to state prison or subsequently to parole. Because of crowding in the L.A. County jail, he probably would have served no more than 45 days.
Whether Samuel could have, or should have, faced a longer prison sentence in 2006 is unclear. What is clear is that if Corrections and legislative Democrats have their way, career criminals like Samuel will face no prison time at all for a variety of theft crimes, which will be reduced from felonies to misdemeanors.
Like most people, I believe that habitual offenders should be incarcerated for terms up to life before they commit horrific crimes, while liberals believe that theft should be effectively decriminalized.
Ignoring crime to save money is a costly way of balancing the budget. Worse than most budget tricks, sentence reductions will result in both increased human and financial costs. People will truly die.
How many more of these tragic instances will Californians experience as a result of failed policy?