'3-strikes' Laws Not Justice at its Best

Dayton Daily News ^ | March 7, 2003 | Dayton Daily News Editorial Staff

[HighWheeler]

Editorial Friday, March 7, 2003

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT'S 5-4 DECISION UP- holding California's "three-strikes" law was predictable.

Especially on criminal matters, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who's considered a frequent swing vote, leans conservative. Writing for the majority, she said that the court should defer to California's legislature, finding that putting Gary A. Ewing away for 25 years was not excessively objectionable. Mr. Ewing's last offense was stealing golf clubs, but his record was lengthy and even violent; he was not just a petty thief stealing to eat. Justice O'Connor also was moved by the impressive fact that four years after California enacted its "three-strikes" law, recidivism among parolees dropped by 25 percent.

The government's interest in deterring crime is a legitimate reason for taking a hard line with offenders, she said.

Justice Stephen Breyer disagreed, calling Mr. Ewing's sentence "virtually unique" in its harshness. He said his analysis showed that the sentence was two to three times the amount of prison time that other jurisdictions would have imposed for the crime.

The majority's decision comes awfully close to being a blanket endorsement of any "three-strikes" law. In a case involving a second defendant whose sentence the court also reviewed, a heroin addict got 50 years for stealing video tapes.

In making that call, the court pretty much said that short of cutting off a thief's hands, states have almost complete discretion in setting punishments. (If the thousands it will cost to keep that offender in prison were spent on his addiction, you have to wonder if he wouldn't be able to kick his habit.)

As appealing as many think "three-strikes" laws are, they have serious disadvantages unrelated to whether they're constitutional. They're tremendously expensive, for instance, especially knowing that most offenders "grow out" of a life of crime. Under these laws, some very old men are will be living in prison long after they couldn't hurt anybody if they wanted to.

In the initial rush to adopt such hard-and-fast rules, some police officers even expressed concern that suspects who were facing a "third strike" would be more violent, hoping to avoid capture if they thought they were facing a decades-long sentence.

But the best case against "three-strike" sentences is that justice ought to be individually tailored. Society should want judges to be judges--taking one case at a time and having to account for their decisions. Not all defendants are created equally good or bad, and many can and do turn around their lives. Others should not get out even after 25 years.

In saying that states can be exceedingly harsh, a divided court is giving lawmakers tremendous latitude. That puts a special burden on policy makers to be smart, not just reflexively punitive.

[Kevin Curry]

. . . especially knowing that most offenders "grow out" of a life of crime.

And just where does this "truth" come from?

[HighWheeler]

That is of course, ignoring the fact that 70% of all crimes are done by repeat offenders.

[tpaine]

". . . especially knowing that most offenders "grow out" of a life of crime."


And just where does this "truth" come from?
-kevin-

Common sense, which the currys of this world totally lack.
- Along with the USSC and the entire political power structure of this rapidly fading republic.

God help us all.

[Hal.009]

. . . especially knowing that most offenders "grow out" of a life of crime.

And just where does this "truth" come from?

It comes from the authors immgnation of course! A big, fat, factoid lie maskrading as the truth.

[HighWheeler]

perhaps you can cite a source to back up your claim.

Maybe a site like this one:

"It has long been recognized that repeat offenders commit a large number of the serious and violent crimes in Florida. One study revealed that upwards of 70% of crimes are committed by 30% of the offenders. The physical misery inflicted by these repeat offenders, and the economic impact of their crimes, are enormous.

[eno_]

The only thing wrong with three strikes is the Drug War.

IF three strikes were applied to violent and property crime, it would work as intended.

With the solution and reporting rates as low as they are, three strikes actually means 147 strikes. People bagged by three strikes (again excluding drug offenses) are the criminals causing most of the property damage and violence.

[tpaine]

Sorry, but 'common sense' is self-evident to rational people.

- Or at least it was 225 years ago, or so.

[eno_]

I would have guessed it follows the business rule of thumb where 20% of your customers buy 80% of your product.

Once a criminal is in this category, nothing will stop them from committing more crimes short of being too old. Three strikes is the only solution.

[HighWheeler]

Then, you have nuthin.

Common sense is an overrated and vague word.

Good Judgement however, is based on experience, and experience comes from learning facts. Therefore, a person needs good facts to have good judgement.

[tpaine]

I have nothing against the concept of three strikes, -- the devils in the details. - And the details of the present laws allow ludicrous results.

Which the USSC compounds by, in effect, shrugging and saying "do what you like" -- to the states.
They 'shrug away' violations of individual rights, imo.

[bfree]

Gee Tom, where does the Consitution give anyone the right to be a continual repeat offender. People that are a menace to society should be removed from that society.

[tpaine]

Yep, we see the evidence of 'good judgement' by government, all about us.

BTW, I've got a bridge for sale, - interested?

[Lurker]

"The only thing wrong with three strikes is the Drug War. "

Give the man a cigar...

"IF three strikes were applied to violent and property crime, it would work as intended."

This particular mook was convicted of stealing golf clubs for his 'magic 3rd' if I'm not mistaken. Golf clubs are property, last time I checked.

I have no problem with 3 time losers being sent away forever. It's not like they weren't warned or anything. I just want to see it applied to rapists, thieves, and burglars instead of some poor sap who gets popped with a couple of joints in his pocket.

L

[CFC__VRWC]

I'll bet this paper's editorial board is 100-percent behind the Democratic filibuster of Miguel Estrada, and would eagerly embrace a scorched-earth left-wing campaign to keep any judge who is remotely conservative from getting anywhere near any bench in any local, state or federal court. These pea-brained editors probably look at the 9th Circus Court of Appeals as a model, middle-of-the-road judiciary, and wistfully pine for the day when every court in the land is at least as far to the Left as the 9th.

With that in mind, it's too bad that these editors will NEVER understand why state legislatures all over America have passed "three strikes" laws, and why these laws typically enjoy 75% to 80% approval among the voters. And that's simply because their "model" judges, if left to their devices, absolutely refuse to punish the criminals that appear before them, typically sentencing them to months in prison (or to probation), even when they commit absolutely hideous, heinous crimes.

The law-abiding public is sick and tired of living in fear of these predators, who are allowed to roam freely in the streets because some bleeding-heart in a black robe thinks slapping murderers and rapists on the wrist is a fine way to demonstrate his "compassion for the downtrodden." So while three-strikes laws may sometimes be clumsy tools for administering justice, they are one of the few ways we have as a society to protect ourselves from violent criminals, as lons as the courts in this country are stacked with the kind of judges of which these editors approve.

[tpaine]

"Gee Tom, where does the Consitution give anyone the right to be a continual repeat offender."
-bf-


Gee 'B', --- where does the constitution give a legislature the right to jail you for life for stealing a golf ball?

[TheMole]

The Washington state three strikes law, passed by popular initiative, gives an additional 10-year no-parole sentence for a third felony. It's probably the best of these efforts.

BTW, Breyer really showed himself to ba a complete horse's ass on this one. If you extend his logic, no state could ever do anything differently from what most of the other states are doing.

[eno_]

I just want to see it applied to rapists, thieves, and burglars instead of some poor sap who gets popped with a couple of joints in his pocket.

Not just the three strikes, but the police efforts, too. Solution rates for proprty crime suck. If they sucked less, property crime would plummet due to a "virtuous cycle" in which more cops were chasing fewer loose burglars, since the most prolific ones are in jail for a loooong stretch. The same goes for robbery.

But the cops are busy planning big drug busts that do little or nothing to take burglars and robbers off the street.

[SENTINEL]

"The only thing wrong with three strikes is the Drug War."

The "three strikes" means three felonies. I may be mistaken, having no personal experience in this matter, but I believe that only drug growers and dealers are charged with felonies. This law does not intend to put away Beavis and Butthead for life for getting caught three times smoking pot.

This law was passed by the Californians (SENTINEL=former Californian) to CONTROL THE LIBERAL JUDGES, not necessarily the criminals.

[Porterville]

I don't like this law. One reason is dudes who come out of prison after serving ten years often have nowhere to go but back to their old neighborhoods. Punks will mad dog these ex-cons who are afraid, who have been locked up and psychologically not all there. They may get in a fight and go to jail for the rest of their life for assault and battery. Fighting and defending yourself from street punks, no matter who you are, should not send you back to jail by default. There are a million other examples. This is a bad law.