President Clinton's proposed "three strikes rule" for dealing with violent criminals won prompt and enthusiastic bipartisan applause.
So much applause, in fact, that it's understandable that legislatures in Utah and 30 other states are now considering doing on the state level what Clinton is urging at the federal level.If those other states are wise, they will also follow Utah's example in moving to have the proposal scrutinized closely by an interim study committee instead of trying to rush it through the current session of the Legislature.
Such study should enable Utah and other states to see what's happening in Washington, the only state with any experience in actually imprisoning repeat offenders for life without parole after their third violent crime.
So far, Washington's experience can only be described as mixed at best. That's because the law there has had some unintended side-effects in the estimation of prosecutors and police.
With nothing to lose, some criminals are showing a tendency to be more violent or desperate when officers try to arrest them for the third violent crime. Likewise, first-time and second-time offenders are less willing to plea bargain, forcing full trials in a Washington court system that has neither the manpower nor the space to take on the extra workload.
Moreover, some cases turn out to be embarrassments for the judicial system. Like the case of the stickup artist whose third "violent" offense consisted of holding up a sandwich shop in Seattle by putting his hand in his pocket and pretending his finger was a gun.
With polls showing the public is more worried about crime than anything else, it's understandable that state and national lawmakers are considering the "three strikes rule." But the rule isn't nearly as simple as it sounds. Washington has had it on the books only a couple of months. Let Washington experiment with the rule at least a couple of years before other states seriously think of emulating it.