In his March 4 column, John Carlson employs deceptive scare tactics to rail against state Sen. Rodney Tom and his support for proposed changes to the “Three Strikes, You’re Out” law.

He cites case after grisly case of convicted criminals for whom the “prison door simply swings open” if the proposed changes become law. He points out that “any cop or prosecutor knows” a charge of Robbery 2 is often pleaded down from from Robbery 1, but he carefully sidesteps the matter of whether any such pleas were actually made in the cases he mentions.

But even if they were, his premise overlooks a basic principle: If someone isn’t convicted of a crime, then – in the eyes of our legal system – they haven’t committed that crime. Carlson casts that notion aside, arguing to keep the criminals he cites locked up for life, even after

serving the full sentences for their two violent strikes. It appears that his actual agenda is to morph the current law into “Two Strikes, You’re Out.” Why doesn’t he just come out and say that?

John Elsbree, Bellevue