‘Law Is Too Soft on Burglary’
The article written by Sigfredo A. Cabrera of the right-wing Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, arguing that the penalties for burglary should be increased, fails to properly inform readers of The Times of the penalties involved for burglary and related offenses. Before anyone tries to jump on this latest “get tough” bandwagon, the facts of existing punishment should be considered.
Contrary to the picture Cabrera attempts to paint, the vast majority of burglaries are simple property offenses, involving somebody breaking into a house or business to steal something when nobody is there. An extremely large number of these offenses are committed by juveniles. Of the rest, most are committed by narcotics addicts seeking money to support their habit. Of course, there is more involved than just a financial loss to the victim, which is why burglary is a crime in the first place. Indeed, a person can be punished for burglary even if the victim suffers no loss at all.
Cabrera does not mention that if the burglary becomes more aggravated, then the punishment is correspondingly greater. For example, if a gun is used in a burglary, the maximum sentence is increased to eight years. If the burglar inflicts injury on somebody, the maximum sentence is nine years. Further, if some other and more serious crime is actually committed by a burglar, such as rape or robbery, then punishment will be imposed for that more serious offense.
Finally, the six-year maximum only applies to a first conviction of burglary. For every prior conviction of a residential burglary, five more years must be added to the sentence. Thus, a person who breaks into a house only to steal when nobody is home, but who has two prior convictions for the same offense, will be facing 16 years in prison, not six.
Since the vast majority of burglaries are simple theft offenses, and do not involve any assault or other violent conduct, a six-year maximum sentence for a first-time non-aggravated burglary is not unreasonable when the sentences that can be imposed for aggravated or repeat offenses are considered.
Our prisons are already overcrowded, and the same day that Cabrera’s article appeared it was reported that California’s prison population has one of the fastest growth rates in the country, rising by almost 20% in 1986 alone. Cabrera should therefore inform Times readers of all the facts before he tries to get support for the very expensive proposition of increasing the prison term imposed upon a first offender for such a nonviolent offense.
JOHN HAMILTON SCOTT
Van Nuys
