Three Strikes Law Still Overinclusive!

As I commented over at Patterico's Pontifications (Patterico is a deputy d.a.), the swing in public opinion on Prop. 66 tells us that Californians think the 3 Strikes Law is overinclusive, but, when confronted with the prospect of the release of 26,000 felons, including sex offenders and murderers, they didn't want to fix it the Prop. 66 way. (Of course, that's not really what the initiative would have done, but I guess we're past that now.)

With that in mind, how about: (1) leave the serious & violent felony lists alone (no matter how much I'd like to get 422's off that list); (2) require a current conviction for a serious or violent felony for a 3d strike 25-to-life sentence; (3) allow 2d-strike sentencing (doubling of base term) for any current felony (with one prior serious or violent felony); (4) expressly provide for resentencing for third strikers only (no one need worry that release of 26K inmates is imminent), but no resentencing for third strikers who have prior homicide or sex offense convictions.

While this proposal would be a way-underinclusive fix, it answers a great deal of the concerns expressed about Prop. 66.

I've been flip-flopping all day about whether 3 Strikes can ever be fixed. There was wide popular support for some components of Prop. 66. Can legislators or future initiative writers/backers see that, or can they only see the blur of Jerry and Arnold.