In light of proposals before the state Senate and House to enact so-called "three-strikes" legislation, most city councilors came out today strongly against any future law that could take away judges' discretion and increase the number of people incarcerated for nonviolent offenses.

"I'm vehemently opposed to Massachusetts modeling anything after the distater that is California's three-strikes law. The economic and human toll of California's three-strikes law is staggering," At-Large City Councilor Ayanna Pressley said. She said that any changes to habitual offender legislation be paired with common sense and compassionate sentencing reform legislation. 

"But for that to happen, we also must implore our colleagues in the House to introduce sentencing reform legislation that could be considered as part of a final bill," Pressley said. 

The "three-strikes law" would compel judges to sentence anyone convicted of three crimes – in certain categories – to long prison sentences. Separate proposals for such legislation are currently in committees in the Senate and House. 

South End Councilor Charles Yancey proposed that the council send a resolution to Gov. Deval Patrick and the state legislature to thoroughly study the implications, both financial and in human terms, the law could have.

The council, he said, needs to "tell the members of the House, the Senate, and yes, even the governor's office to slow down, study it." 

While many councilors who spoke agreed that the law was bad for Boston, most said that while they want to send a strong message to the state regarding the city's position, they did not support the resolution as currently written.

Councilor Matt O'Malley, who represents West Roxbury and Jamaica Plain, did not offer an opinion on the state proposals but said that he wants more information about the bills before voting on any city resolution. 

Like O'Malley, most councilors instead wanted the issue to go to committee where they could get more information about the proposals before drafting a message stating what they would like the legislature to do.

But while some councilors were concerned about the state passing a law they viewed as draconian, they made sure to clarify that violent offenders should be behind bars.

"There's a difference to me between someone who is evil enough to assault a a person sexually or take a life, and someone who just made some bad choices," At-Large City Councilor Felix Arroyo said, echoing sentiments shared by other councilors. 

Arroyo, Yancey and Pressley suggested that in most cases involving a nonviolent offense, a lifelong prison sentence is not a smart way to deal with crime.

"You can be tough on crime, and you ought to be, and you can be smart on crime, and you ought to be," O'Malley said.