I must admit, my emotional feelings tell me such three strikes laws are just unfair. However, after putting aside such feelings, knowing that emotions make bad laws, my Libertarian mind tells me that perhaps the Court's decision was correct. I find Justice O'Connor's majority opinion interesting, to say the least.


US Supreme Court upholds 'three-strikes' law

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided Supreme Court upheld Wednesday California's "three-strikes" law which gives up to life in prison for repeat offenders even if their last crime was minor theft like stealing golf clubs.

By a 5-4 vote, the high court ruled the law does not violate the constitutional ban on "cruel and unusual" punishment.

In one case, the high court said it was constitutional for Gary Ewing to be sentenced to 25 years to life even though his last crime was stealing three golf clubs worth about $1,200.

In the other case, the justices by a 5-4 vote said a U.S. appeals court was wrong in overturning the sentence of two consecutive terms of 25 years to life for Leandro Andrade, who stole nine videotapes worth $153.

Ewing and Andrade had been convicted of a number of prior felonies. They argued the law unconstitutionally resulted in an unduly harsh sentence "grossly disproportionate" to the crime.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote in the majority opinion that in the Ewing case the three-strikes laws caused a dramatic change in criminal sentencing in the mid-1990s throughout the nation.

State legislatures "made a deliberate policy choice that individuals who have repeatedly engaged in serious or violent criminal behavior and whose conduct has not been deterred by more conventional approaches to punishment must be isolated from society ... to protect public safety," she said.

O'Connor said the Supreme Court has a long-standing tradition of deferring to state legislatures on such policy choices.

She acknowledged controversy over California's law, with critics questioning its wisdom, cost efficiency and effectiveness.

COURT WON'T SECOND-GUESS LEGISLATURE

O'Connor said the criticism should be directed to the state legislature, not the Supreme Court and added, "We do not sit as a 'superlegislature' to second-guess these policy choices."

The law, whose name derives from the baseball rule "three strikes and you're out," was adopted in 1994 amid public anger over the kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas. Richard Allen Davis, a repeat offender on parole, was convicted of the murder and sentenced to death.

The three-strikes law mandates a sentence ranging from 25 years to life in prison for defendants if they have already been found guilty of two "serious or violent" crimes. The felonies are specified by law and typically are offenses involving violence or threat of violence.

Crimes that might otherwise be considered misdemeanors may be treated as felonies under California's law, meaning shoplifting or other less serious crimes can trigger a long sentence.

The rulings could affect about 350 California prisoners who were convicted under the law, with petty theft as their third offense. About 7,000 inmates are serving life terms under the law.

California has the nation's toughest three-strikes law. About half the 50 states have a similar provision -- one of a number of get-tough measures adopted in the 1990s in response to escalating crime rates.

State officials said focusing on the small percentage of career offenders has helped lower the crime rate.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Anthony Kennedy fully agreed with O'Connor's reasoning. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome, but had different interpretations on the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The court's most liberal members -- Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- dissented.

Breyer, who took the rare step of reading parts of his dissent from the bench, said Ewing's sentence amounted to "overkill."

He said Ewing's sentence of 25 years was two or three times what he would have received in other jurisdictions in similar circumstances.

In dissenting in the other case, Souter wrote, "If Andrade's sentence is not grossly disproportionate, the principle has no meaning."

I really see both sides of this one - certainly keeping violent felons off the street is a good idea, but sending someone to jail for life because of stolen golf clubs just doesn't make sense to me. As MIB said "emotions make bad laws" and I wonder how much thought went into the structure of the "three strikes" law.

Because these laws do not allow for much, if any, judicial leeway, they can have really horrible unintended side effects. I have read reports that DAs in California are not pressing felony charges against certain people because it would bring up the three strikes law and the DAs do not believe the felony warrants it, which just moves the leeway from the judge to the DA, I'd rather have it with the judge. Also, certain juries are refusing to convict defendants because they don't believe life is an appropriate punishment for the third strike crime (known as "jury nullification").

I would rather see more narrowly constructed laws that limit the life sentence to only truly violent crimes. Most states already increase punishments on repeat offenders, and while a serial burgler may still be a criminal, they should not be treated as harshly as, say, a serial rapist.

Words of wisdom as always, CPT_Doom.

You make some good points, CPT. I was discussing this with my rather left-of-center mother last night, and she yells to me: "Well, if they wouldn't have committed a crime in the first place, they wouldn't have been thrown in jail for so long."

Kind of hard to argue with that.