Supreme Court Upholds 'Three-Strikes' Sentence

Reuters ^ | 3/5/03

[B-bone]

Supreme Court Upholds 'Three-Strikes' Sentence

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A divided U.S. Supreme Court upheld on Wednesday a sentence of 25 years to life in prison under California's "three-strikes" law to a person who was convicted of stealing golf clubs.

The high court, by a 5-4 vote, affirmed a ruling that upheld the sentence for Gary Ewing, who received 25 years to life for stealing three golf clubs worth about $1,200. He argued the sentence was unconstitutional and grossly disproportionate to his crime.

[B-bone]

I didn't see this posted. Another Supreme ruling today.

[Sacajaweau]

Interesting: Would not overturn the right of a state to make and enforce it's own laws, I would guess.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

What the opinion means is, putting some people in jail repeatedly does not seem to correct their bad habits.

[Beck_isright]

Dear Mr. Ewing,

Crime will no longer pay.

Sincerely,
The USSC

[Grampa Dave]

However, if the bad guys are locked up after their third strike and the key is thrown away. They stop committing crimes against innocent victims.

The three strikes enactment was one of the best things to ever happen to California.

Off course those against it, are the same ones who support the Mass Murdering Soddomite. Left wing lunatics and their rich trial lawyers.

[11th Earl of Mar]

25 years for simply stealing golf clubs?

Not quite.

What were his first two crimes? Anybody know?

[Eric in the Ozarks]

I agree.

[jlogajan]

It is more like a law against stupidity.

[Teacher317]

3 clubs = 3 strikes? Or were there two other crimes that we aren't getting?

[aristeides]

Ninth Circuit loses again, I take it.

[Michael.SF.]

stealing three golf clubs worth about $1,200.

Those are some expensive clubs.

However, I still think a Judge should have some leeway on sentencing. But on the other hand, the reason this law was enacted was the too many judges were too lenient.

This case is another example of anecdotal evidence to argue against both Three Strikes and Zero Tolerance. Both are well intentioned, but both have many incidents of excessiveness.

[mvpel]

Under California law, prior convictions can transform even minor misdemeanors, such as shoplifting two video tapes or a golf club, into a felony, and the "three strikes" law doesn't distinguish between violent and non-violent felonies.

I guess that's what happens when you use a baseball-derived catch-phrase to set public policy, instead of logic and reason.

[B-bone]

This clip from a longer story I found via google from the Austin-American Statesman.


"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."

http://www.austin360.com/aas/news/ap/ap_story.html/Washington/AP.V6155.AP-Scotus-Three-St.html

[Grampa Dave]

The ACLU lawyers never tell us about the first two or in some cases even more than two crimes.

They try to make the guy look like he was feeding his starving family by stealing a frozen pizza to feed them.

[mvpel]

I should also mention that the dollar cutoff for grand theft (a felony) in California is a non-inflation-adjusted $400, so this fellow and the $1,200 worth of golf clubs was committing a felony anyway, unlike the three-strike guy who was put away for 25 years for stealing $25 worth of videotapes due to the prior conviction felony enhancement.

[ArcLight]

I'm sorry this guy will spend the next quarter-century in prison. I'm sorry he was too stupid to stop stealing, too.

[B-bone]

Here is the entire story from the Austin-American Statesman.

Supreme Court Upholds 'Three-Strikes' Law
By ANNE GEARAN
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON (AP)--The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld long sentences meted out under the nation's toughest three-time offender law, ruling that a prison term of 25 years to life is not too harsh for a small-time thief who shoplifted golf clubs.

California's three-strikes-and-you're-out law does not lead to unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment, the court said, even though a relatively minor crime can yield a life term if the criminal has a felony record.

The court divided, 5-4, though, in two cases testing the limits of California's Proposition 184, intended to close the revolving prison door for criminals with lengthy, violent records.

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 person convicted of a third felony.

Wednesday's ruling addressed only the effects of the California law. But the high court's reasoning will likely shield other three-strikes laws from similar constitutional challenges.

The court majority noted the popularity of such laws and the public fears behind them. State legislatures should have leeway to keep career criminals away from the public, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority.

``When the California legislature enacted the three-strikes law, it made a judgment that protecting the public safety requires incapacitating criminals who have already been convicted of at least one serious or violent crime,'' O'Connor wrote.

The Constitution's Eighth Amendment guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment does not prohibit California from making that choice, she wrote.

O'Connor was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Anthony Kennedy. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said the case of Gary Albert Ewing is a rare example of a sentence that is so out of proportion to the crime that it is unconstitutional.

The sentence means Ewing, an AIDS patient, would serve at least 25 years in prison without possibility of parole, Breyer noted on behalf of himself and Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Outside California, a 25 year prison term is more the norm for someone convicted of first-degree murder, not shoplifting, Breyer wrote.

``Ewing's sentence is, at a minimum, two to three times the length of sentences that other jurisdictions would impose in similar circumstances,'' he wrote.

Breyer read a summary of his dissent from the bench, a step justices usually reserve for cases in which there is strong, often ideological, disagreement.

The same lineup of justices also acted in another case, a widely noted appeal in which a small-time burglar was senteced to 50 years to life in prison for stealing videos from K-Mart.

The court reversed a federal appeals court ruling which had found Leandro Andrade's sentence unconstitutional.

California's law was adopted by referendum in 1994, largely in response to the murder of schoolgirl Polly Klass by a repeat criminal who was out on parole.

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.

Supporters of the laws say they keep habitual criminals off the streets and serve as a deterrent for criminals who already have one or two felonies on their record.

Critics say the laws are too harsh and inflexible in general, and particularly so in California.

The California law 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. It also permits judges to treat as felonies a third offense that would otherwise be a misdemeanor.

In practice, the California law has often meant harsh prison terms for people like Ewing and Andrade.

A clerk in an El Segundo, Calif., pro shop noticed Ewing trying to make off with the $399 clubs shoved down one pants leg.

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.

Andrade's ``third strike'' was a 1995 charge for twice shoving children's videos down his pants and walking out of Southern California K-Mart stores. The tapes, including ``Batman Forever'' and ``Cinderella,'' were worth $153.

Andrade was eligible for extra punishment under the three-strikes law because he had a history of burglaries. He was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life, with no possibility of parole until 2046, when Andrade would be 87.

The cases are Lockyer v. Andrade, 01-1127, and Ewing v. California, 01-6978.

__

[Mister Baredog]

He argued the sentence was unconstitutional and grossly disproportionate to his crime

These laws are aimed at getting habitual criminals off the streets. You might ask yourself what he stole the day before, or who would be his next victim. These criminals have long rap sheets and lifetimes of criminal activity. This law has done more to lower crime rates than anything that has happened in recent years. Taking the repeat offenders, out of our society is the right thing to do

[aristeides]

Yup, Ninth Circuit reversed in one of the two cases, Andrade, and the author of the reversed opinion is Dianne Feinstein's favorite, Judge Paez. Andrade v. the Attorney General of the State of California, 270 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 2001).