CA 3 Strikes Law upheld by US Supreme Court

[Timber Loftis]

TL's OpEd:
Well, the stupid court upheld the stupid law. Note that the typical 5-4 division played out as expected, with the Renqhuist-led anti-federalists, represented by favorite sock O'Connor, writing the "majority" opinion.

The 8th Amendment means NOTHING.

In their desire to let states run amuck unchecked, the anti-federalists have thrown the Constitution out the window. *The* punishment should fit *the* crime - simple as that.

"If Andrade's sentence is not grossly disproportionate, the principle has no meaning," Justice Souter declared.

I agree.

"We do not sit as a `superlegislature' to second-guess these policy choices," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority in the Ewing case.

Translation: we like sitting on our hands rather than applying the law. Plus, Renqhuist, my boss, wants to abolish the federal system.

O'Connor also related it back to the Polly case which cause the law to be passed - for justification. Well, let's just put a seal of approval on every legislative knee-jerk reaction while we're at it. This should foreshadow how any challenge to our neo-McCarthy Partriot Act will play out.

Okay, [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] off. I truly have no dog in this fight, but it offends me intellectually.

Supreme Court Affirms Stringent 'Three Strikes' Law
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, March 5 — The Supreme Court affirmed the right of states to impose harsh sentences on career criminals today, upholding California's "three strikes" law under which people can go to prison for many years for seemingly minor offenses.

In two 5-to-4 rulings, the court held that state legislatures can prescribe long terms for repeat offenders, even if the latest brush with the law is not a particularly serious one — the theft of $1,200 worth of golf clubs in one case and $153.54 worth of videotapes in the other.

The rulings were bad news for Gary A. Ewing, the golf-club thief who will not be eligible for parole consideration for 25 years, and for Leandro Andrade, who is to languish behind bars for 50 years as the result of his latest transgression: taking videotapes from Kmart stores on two occasions.

And while California's laws for dealing with repeat offenders are considered to be the harshest in the country, the court signaled that other states can follow its course if they choose. "We do not sit as a `superlegislature' to second-guess these policy choices," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority in the Ewing case.

California's law, adopted in 1994, permits judges to treat as third felonies crimes that would ordinarily be classified misdemeanors. Most other states that impose extra-long sentences after a third offense require the third strike to be a violent or at least a serious crime.

In constitutional terms, the court held today that the punishment meted out to Mr. Ewing and Mr. Andrade was not "grossly disproportionate" to the offense, and thus contrary to the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

In laymen's terms, the court said Mr. Ewing and Mr. Andrade were not really being sentenced to such long terms merely for stealing golf clubs and videotapes. Rather, they were reaping the seeds of years of bad behavior and an unwillingness to reform.

"At the threshold, we note that Ewing incorrectly frames the issue," Justice O'Connor wrote. "The gravity of his offense was not merely `shoplifting three golf clubs.' "

"In weighing the gravity of Ewing's offense, we must place on the scales not only his current felony, but also his long history of felony recidivism," Justice O'Connor wrote.

With deliberate understatement, Justice O'Connor noted that "Ewing is no stranger to the criminal justice system." The justice then listed more than a dozen crimes, involving thefts, burglaries, drugs, battery and house burglaries, including one incident in which he threatened a man with a knife.

In most of those cases, Mr. Ewing drew relatively light sentences combined with probation, and all those crimes were committed before he was caught stealing golf clubs, court records showed.

Writing for the majority in the Andrade case, Justice O'Connor noted that he too has well established credentials as a career criminal, having been in and out of prison constantly for two decades. As evidence of his incorrigibility, the justice cited a probation officer's report after the defendant's arrest for stealing the tapes.

"He took four of them to sell so he could buy heroin," the probation officer said. "He has been a heroin addict since 1977. He says when he gets out of jail or prison he always does something stupid. He admits his addiction controls his life and he steals for his habit."

The justices split the same way in each case. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy joined Justice O'Connor. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas basically agreed, although in separate opinions.

Dissenting in both cases were Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer. Writing in the Ewing case, Justice Breyer conceded that the defendant is a recidivist, and he said that shoplifting should not be considered a minor crime.

But the justice noted that Mr. Ewing, in his late 30's and seriously ill when he was sentenced, will probably die in prison. "Ewing's sentence (life imprisonment with a minimum, term of 25 years) is grossly disproportionate to the triggering offense — stealing three golf clubs — Ewing's recidivism notwithstanding," Justice Breyer said.

In the Andrade case, Justice Souter was troubled that the defendant was given a sentence twice as long as Mr. Ewing's, even though Mr. Andrade's criminal history is "less grave" and the final triggering offense was less serious.

"If Andrade's sentence is not grossly disproportionate, the principle has no meaning," Justice Souter declared.

In the Ewing case, the majority upheld the judgment of the California Court of Appeal. In the Andrade case, the justices overruled the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, which had declared the defendant's sentence in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

The cases, Ewing v. California, No. 01-6978, and Lockyer v. Andrade, No. 01-1127, were argued before the Supreme Court on Nov. 5.

As Justice O'Connor noted in the Ewing case, California's tough "three strikes"law was overwhelmingly approved by California lawmakers and voters in 1994, when people were still reeling from the shock of Polly Klaas's murder. Polly, 12 years old, was kidnapped from her home in Petaluma, Calif., on Oct. 1, 1993, and killed by Richard Allen Davis, a career criminal who had served only about half his most recent sentence, for kidnapping, assault and burglary.

"Had Davis served his entire sentence, he would still have been in prison on the day that Polly Klaas was kidnapped," Justice O'Connor noted.

Bummer dude

[wellard]

This insidious law seems to be spreading like cancer with the New South Wales election coming up one of the right wing party’s has put forward this law if it wins.

First let me say that I fully understand the frustration that drives this sort of law. Who doesn’t get upset with repeat offenders constantly getting off with slaps on the wrist?

Why can't we have a compromise where after the 3 offence the culprit is sent to goal, no appeal, but the length of sentence from a week to life is decided by the judge?

By allowing this compromise we still have the sobering affect that the criminal will know that if he is caught again he WILL be going to goal. But we can still have the judge apply the filter of commonsense.

What does everyone else think of this compromise?

[Seraph]

*The* punishment should fit *the* crime - simple as that.

I always thought the way the system worked was that the sentence was supposed to fit the criminal. Thats why we don't throw 10 year olds in prision for life if they murder someone.

[Timber Loftis]

WELLARD I like your idea.

Seraph, you are addressing the relative level of culpability. Criminal law is 2 parts:
1. Trial
2. Sentencing

During a criminal trial, the US system demands we calculate:
1. Mens rea (mental capacity to commit the crime)
2. + Actus reas (a criminal act)
3. - Individual mitigating factors (self defense, other factual concerns)

With children, we assume certain age types are incapable of a level of mens rea, that is to say they are not capable of a "guilty mind" or "malice aforethought."

Your concern goes to the TRIAL, the one addressed by the court goes to SENTENCING.

Don't get confused on the issues - some states do decrease the "sentence" portion based on age, cooperation with officers, plea bargain, etc. etc. But the "minor's culpability" concern goes to proving the case to begin with.

[ 03-05-2003, 06:24 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[wellard]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: WELLARD I like your idea.

Well get off your bum *fanny* and get to work, I want you on the supreme court in 3 years. Or I'll *thinks of threat* or no more Scotch [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Timber Loftis]

WELLARD! [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img] That's what I get for encouraging you. [img]graemlins/whackya.gif[/img] One more for good measure!

Just for the record, I am at the bottom-of-totem-pole gum-on-shoe level amongst the other attorneys in my new firm. 3 years??? Try 30.