This should be an interesting Supreme Court case. Thoughts? Court to Review 3-Strikes Sentences Mon Apr 1, 4:13 PM ET By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court said Monday it will review whether some three-strikes-and-out sentencing laws result in unconstitutionally harsh prison terms, such as up to life behind bars for shoplifting videotapes from Kmart. The court agreed to hear appeals involving two California thieves sentenced to terms ranging from 25 years to life for small-time crimes that might otherwise have meant just a few months in jail. The Supreme Court will consider whether long sentences were unconstitutionally cruel or unusual punishment for a heroin addict who shoplifted videotapes worth $153 and an AIDS patient who shoved three golf clubs down his pants leg and tried to walk out of a pro shop. The court's eventual ruling could be limited to the way the law is applied in California, or it could make a more general statement about how far states may go in using similar laws to win very long prison terms for relatively minor crimes. Twenty-six states and the federal government have some version of a three-strikes law, which typically allow a life prison term or something close to it for a criminal convicted of a third felony. Critics say the laws are too harsh and inflexible in general, and particularly so in California, which has the nation's strictest three-strikes law. It requires a sentence of 25 years to life in prison for any felony conviction if the criminal was previously convicted of two serious or violent felonies. "If an individual is charged with growing a single mar1juana plant, and he has on his record two qualifying prior convictions, he's dog meat," said Jerome P. Mullins, a San Jose, Calif., criminal defense lawyer who has had several clients prosecuted under the state three-strikes law. "He's looking at 25-to-life for growing a plant." Crimes that might otherwise be considered misdemeanors may also be considered felonies, meaning that a shoplifting charge like the one Leandro Andrade faced can trigger the three-strikes provision. Andrade was convicted of twice stuffing videotapes down his pants at southern California Kmart stores in 1995. He had previous burglary convictions, making him eligible for extra punishment under California's three-strikes law. "No other state in the country has such a sentencing scheme where misdemeanor conduct can be the basis for an indeterminate life sentence," said Andrade's lawyer, University of Southern California Law School professor Erwin Chemerinsky. A state court upheld Andrade's sentence, but the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a widely noted decision last year, ruled it unconstitutional. The ruling was limited to cases like his, and did not overturn the three-strikes law itself. A divided three-judge panel of the appeals court found Andrade's sentence "grossly disproportionate" to the theft, and said Supreme Court rulings require a trial judge to examine whether the punishment fits the crime. The Supreme Court also said it will hear a case that came out the other way. A state court upheld Gary Ewing's sentence of 25 years to life in prison for trying to steal three golf clubs at an El Segundo, Calif., golf course. Ewing had four prior convictions for robbery and burglary. Although prosecutors could have charged him with a misdemeanor in the golf club case, they chose to charge him with a felony under the state's three-strikes law. "Serving 25 years to life for stealing golf clubs is cruel and unusual punishment," Ewing's lawyer wrote in asking the Supreme Court to get involved. California voters and lawmakers approved the three-strikes law in 1994 amid public furor over the kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas. Richard Allen Davis, a repeat offender on parole at the time of the kidnapping, was convicted of the murder and sentenced to death. Three-strikes laws in other states and the federal government were also passed in the 1990s, when the spread of crack cocaine fed public fears about rising violent crime. California Secretary of State Bill Jones, an author of the state's 1994 law, credited the law with helping lower crime in the state by 41 percent, more than twice the national average decline in the same period. "We clearly focused the law on that small percentage of the criminal population that commits the vast majority of the crime in our society," Jones said Monday. The law is getting career criminals off the street and serves as a deterrent for criminals who already have one or two felonies on their record, Jones said. The cases are Lockyer v. Andrade, 01-1127, and Ewing v. California, 01-6978.
growing weed, consumption, and possession should not be a crime in the first place...but if you have two strikes and you commit another crime...see ya in 25 years scumbag. i didnt read all of the article but for someone stealing after having 2 strikes should go to jail for twenty five years as long as i dont have to pay for it but i do so im torn...just fry the scumbag, that will save $...im kidding, but not really...
I don't understand people b!tching about prison sentances. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
I don't understand people b!tching about prison sentances. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Do you think life-in-prison would be fair punishment for parking illegally? How about the death penalty? If not, then the length of sentence for a crime is a fair issue to debate, I think.
i think most of these strike 3 rules apply to felony crimes...im no lawyer, i only play one on the bbs, but i doubt there has ever been a prison term longer than a month for some shmoe who keeps parking in a handicap spot...
I think this part: Seems to say that some misdemeanors are elevated to felonies for people with prior records, so it is not unthinkable that a person could get a 25 year sentence for a very minor crime.
I think Hydra already said it best... It took 2 previous felonies in addition to their current crime to put these people in the situation they are in. Geez, how many chances does somebody deserve before they are held accountable for their actions? It's highly unlikely that these two will serve anywhere near 25 years, anyway. If I'm not mistaken, these sentances aren't even mandatory, meaning many leave early. The only ones who are likely to serve 25 years to life are those who commit violent felonies, not 3x shoplifters. This article clearly leans a certain way... Poor victims...a junkie and an AIDS patient...how is this relevant to the story at all? No, actually, he would be looking at prison time for the 3 felonies he CHOSE to commit...not for growing a "plant"....give me a break. Same again...how many times has this guy done this? It's not as if they are making up laws as they go along...these people think punishment itself is cruel and unusual... Major, this law doesn't apply to misdemeanors or traffic violations. We are talking about repeat offender felons, here. These aren't people who deserve our sympathy... x34
You are mistaken. 25 to life means they have to serve 25 years before they are eligible for parole. Convicting of the crime they committed and sentencing them in accordance with their actual crimes would be holding them accountable for their actions. While I would agree that some sentence enhancement for repeat offenders is probably justified, the idea of a mandatory 25 to life sentence (and it is mandatory) regardless of the third crime committed is overkill. Think of it this way, the person who steals $153 worth of videotapes who has no criminal record is going to get probation, probably. The person with one previous felony conviction may get 3 months in county. Two previous convictions, maybe you get 6 months. If it's your third, though, you get 25 to life. Then the punishment exceeds all reasonableness. There needs to be allowable discretion to allow for the punishment to fit the level of crime while still offering an extra punishment for being a repeat offender. The fact that California treats misdemeanors committed by would-be 3rd strikers as felonies regardless of the crime itself concerns me as much as anything. It is not far-fetched that someone could go to jail for 25 years to life for committing a very minor infraction. If the classification of crimes is the same in California as Texas, a person with two previous felonies could go to prison for 25 years for spray painting his name on a wall of an abandoned building, as graffiti (with a loss less than $500) is a Class B misdemeanor same as theft of $50 to $500 (like the videotape example). Do you really think graffiti or shoplifting is on par with Second Degree Murder (in which the punishment is generally 25 to life)?
Of course the penalty is very harsh. That is the whole point. How many crimes does someone need to commit before we realize that putting them in the pokey for three months isn't stopping their pattern of behavior. If you are stupid enough to be committing crimes when you already have two strikes against you, you will get zero sympathy from me.
I don't like "three strikes" laws, the same way I don't like "mandatory minimums"-- they bind the judge's hands and I don't think they deter crime. But that article doesn't seem particularly well-balanced. There's one quote in favor of the law(s), and nothing from the counsel opposing the Supreme Court case. All of the exploration of the issue seems to be based on the reasoning of the plaintiffs.
My church always does an Angel Tree program at Christmas. There are ornaments on the tree that people are encouraged to pick off the tree...they're little pieces of paper that contain the name of a little boy or girl whose mom or dad (or both) is in prison. This ministry goes to visit the parent in prison and asks what they want their child to have for Christmas that year...it's usually three gifts..two necessary items (clothing, etc) and one toy. It really is a great program. Two years back, my business partner and friend was heading up the project for our church. He called the home where one of the children was listed to be inquiring as to whether or not she was the only child in the home, what else could we do, anything else anybody needs, etc. He went out to visit them in one of the wards. He found a home with no furniture...the girls slept on the floor on sheets that probably hadn't been washed in a year. The three girls were being raised by their grandmother who was basically stuck in bed all the time due to health concerns. She had the girls bring in bowels for her to go to the bathroom in, and then they'd take that to the toilet and flush it down. There was absolutely nothing positive for the girls to look to...no example of anyone who went to work during the day and earned a living...very little of anything. The church (and my business partner in particular) furnished their entire apartment for them. Bought them all new clothes...new school supplies...and continues to provide them food on a regular basis. All of this was around Christmas Eve. Their mother will be out sometime soon, I think. Father was a repeat possession offender. On December 26, my friend got a call from the father in prison...he had heard everything our church had done for his girls (daughters he had NEVER previously paid attention to)...and he wanted to thank him and share some great news. On Christmas, he had decided to give his life to Christ...and he wanted to make right all he had done wrong...he wanted to be the dad he had not been to his girls!!! Unfortunately, he won't be out for some time...he was found in possession of small amounts of drugs, and he ended up with one of these sentences. He writes them all the time..calls when he can...and is working like crazy to teach his daughters, from a distance, to avoid the mistakes he has made. The girls are basically living with my friend now...they are at our church every Sunday...and as often as possible, he takes them to see their father. Because of this story, I've really had to rethink my position on such harsh sentences for these relatively minor offenses. Life for 3X possession seems a bit much to me.
I have always thought they were too harsh. They should allow the judges room to sentence someone accordingly. Their prior record should be considered, but it should not warrant an automatic 25 year sentence. DaDakota
i think most of these strike 3 rules apply to felony crimes...im no lawyer, i only play one on the bbs, but i doubt there has ever been a prison term longer than a month for some shmoe who keeps parking in a handicap spot... red -- I agree. However, my point was to argue the whole "whatever jailtime is fine since they knew about it" argument. I'd argue that certain sentences are still excessive -- ie, the death penalty for a parking violation. If someone does believe that's excessive, then their blanket statement really doesn't apply anymore. I have always thought they were too harsh. They should allow the judges room to sentence someone accordingly. Their prior record should be considered, but it should not warrant an automatic 25 year sentence. Agreed. 3-strikes type things just don't take into account important things like intent, motive, etc. For example, violent criminals who want to hurt someone are a very different story, in my opinion, than a homeless person shoplifting food to survive.
Geez, how many chances does somebody deserve before they are held accountable for their actions? They were held accountable every time. They got sentenced for each of their previous offenses. If a man's served his prison sentence, isn't his "debt to society" for that offense paid? I don't like "three strikes" laws, the same way I don't like "mandatory minimums"-- they bind the judge's hands and I don't think they deter crime. I have always thought they were too harsh. They should allow the judges room to sentence someone accordingly. Their prior record should be considered, but it should not warrant an automatic 25 year sentence. Agree with both of you guys. Couldn't have said it better myself. Give the trial judge the opportunity to consider the circumstances surrounding the crime in making his sentencing determination.
mrpaige, my mistake. I originally thought that many were eligible for early release as a means of creating some sort of balance between the actual crimes and the punishment. I've read the law since, and this doesn't seem to be the case. Reading further down, Kagy brings up an excellent point in that a mandatory sentance with no leeway binds a judge's hands. My guess is that is intentional. Perhaps it was thought the law would lose its effectiveness if judges were permitted to circumvent the mandatory sentance? I still don't have a lot of sympathy for these criminals, however. The rule is still on the books. It was clearly created to be extreme so as to serve as a deterrent to repeat offenders. The article doesn't spend much time on it, but towards the end mentions that crimes have dropped dramatically since the implementation of the law. If part of this decline was due to the law, I would say it has proven to be an effective deterrent. And again, the 25-life sentancing requirement only applies to offenders with 2 or more serious felonies on their record. In this case one had 2 previous "serious" felonies and the other had four. The details of their previous crimes was only mentioned in passing while more time/focus was put on the videotapes and golf club thefts. However, you can get a list of crimes which can count as strikes under California's law...http://www.silicon-valley.com/star4.html These aren't crimes to be taken lightly... x34
If the penalty for parking in the handicap spot was death, I don't know about you, but I would never park in the handicap spot (I don't do that anyway). That is the whole reason that I do not care about excessive sentances. No one is forcing people to commit crimes. In fact, half of the reason for sentencing criminals is to deter people from commiting crimes. The harsher the penalty, the more of a deterence. Of course some people are still going to commit crimes, and that is where the other half of sentancing comes in, to punish them for wrong doing. We don't even punish criminals that harshly the first couple of times they screw up. Once they have established that they plan to live a life of crime, that is when they need to be removed from our society. I cannot understand the whining about what is fair for CAREER CRIMINALS.
Historically, that statement has been proven to be inaccurate. Severity of punishment doesn't act as much of a deterrant; certainty of punishment (knowing that you will get caught and punished) has a much greater effect.
If the penalty for parking in the handicap spot was death, I don't know about you, but I would never park in the handicap spot (I don't do that anyway). That is the whole reason that I do not care about excessive sentances. But by the logic, why don't we just have the death penalty for all crimes?
I am sure you're right. I think idea was to make sure that the repeat offenders were incarcerated for long periods of time instead of being subjected to more progressive punishments-- the "treatment track". I knew there was a conservative somewhere in you, Major. Stealin' a pack of gum? Death penalty. Jaywalkin'? Death penalty. Starin' out the window? Death penalty. Paddlin' the school canoe? Oh, you better believe that gets the death penalty.
BK: Great post about the lack of leeway. That was my thought. By the way, for everyone who thinks that these laws were put into effect as a deterrant, think again. Even police don't like them (did a little research) because they create a tremendous amount of paperwork and red tape in instances when there shouldn't be and often send people to prison who should be in rehab. These laws were created so politicians could look "tough on crime." They love looking like the tough, law fighting do-gooders who is doing everything they can to fight crime on our streets. The reality is that it is a law fraught with problems and most of these three strikes laws are poorly written to boot. I'm not saying they shouldn't have some type of progressive system for handling repeat offenders. That's fine. However, these laws are poorly written, mis-used and overly harsh.
