Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Upholds 'Three-Strikes' Sentence
Reuters ^ | 3/5/03

Posted on 03/05/2003 8:12:20 AM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Crime/Corruption; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last
To: Mister Baredog
Taking the repeat offenders, out of our society is the right thing to do

This is the crux of the problem this law is designed to address.

21 posted on 03/05/2003 8:46:07 AM PST by B-bone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
I would certainly back a three strikes law that included three violent felonies, but I suspect a law that transforms burglary or shoplifting into a life sentence will be revisited. These laws are a direct result of stupid judges failing to protect the citizens.
22 posted on 03/05/2003 8:46:08 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: All
In the other case, Ewing, the California state courts had upheld the three-strikes law, and the Supreme Court affirmed their decision.
23 posted on 03/05/2003 8:46:41 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Steven W.
Was it you who pointed out to me how much Dianne Feinstein loves Judge Paez?
24 posted on 03/05/2003 8:48:32 AM PST by aristeides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: B-bone
Whoa! Another law-and-order ruling! What are they smoking up there? /sarcasm off
25 posted on 03/05/2003 8:51:22 AM PST by HumanaeVitae
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B-bone
I live in California. I support the three strike law.

I read that the Judges should have some leeway in setting the sentence. That is what got us here in the first place. Judges were letting criminals go time after time after time. I too would prefer that Judges had some leeway, but I would also prefer having Judges that would take their jobs serious, and not act as another defense attorney.

Very few law abiding citizens well find themselves facing the three strike law. First you have to commit a felony, and then be caught and then be tried and then be found guilty. Now, can anyone tell me with a straight face that someone found guilty of a felony was for the very first and only crime they committed? No, most likely they have committed many felonies but have only been caught for the one.

After serving your time, you have to return to your life of crime, and start the process over, committing felonies, getting caught, getting tried, and being found guilty.

Now, after getting out the third time, you have a choice, do not commit anymore crimes (or move out of California) or risk the third strike.

If you go out to commit more crimes you are pretty much telling the world you can not help yourself and that you will continue on your merry criminal way, unless stopped. Well the three strike law is going to stop you, at least for awhile.

This is a quality of life issue as much as anything. The person who had their golf clubs stolen (in this case) should not have suffered this loss, regardless of the cost of the clubs.

Every crime committed affects innocent civilians, and sometimes in large ways sometimes in small ways. Stealing is wrong. Society should have the right to discourage people from committing crimes. And if someone has shown through their actions that they can not help themselves, then they should be locked up for a very long time.

I live in California, and I have no problem paying for the prisons.

If you think the three strike laws are too harse, invite the criminals into your state and treat them with kindness, as long as they are off the streets, I am happy.

26 posted on 03/05/2003 8:52:51 AM PST by riversarewet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #27 Removed by Moderator

To: 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.

A similar thing happened here in FLorida. We passed a "Three Strikes Law" several years ago, and it was off course challeneged. It stood up. Funny thing is, it was touted as "Three strikes and its over" for violent criminals. Last year, Jeb and the legislature were trying to add drug possession to the list of "three strikes" which would result in 25-life. Its the old bait and switch.

28 posted on 03/05/2003 8:56:14 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: js1138
IIRC the California law requires two of the three felonies to be violent or serious (such as burglary, rape, assault, armed robbery).

After two such convictions, I don't care if they go away for life if the third is for spitting on the sidewalk. They have already proven that they can't play nice with others, and can't learn to behave in society.
29 posted on 03/05/2003 8:57:12 AM PST by LexBaird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: B-bone
Ready for some facts?

Ewing has been on probation, parole, or incarcerated almost continuously since at least 1984. A careful reading of the record reveals that Ewing was convicted of at least 13 crimes before committing his present final strike offense, including at least five felonies, with the remainder being misdemeanors.

In November of 1984, Ewing committed grand theft in Ohio and sustained a conviction.

In November of 1988, Ewing was convicted of grand theft for stealing a car and was sentenced to three years probation with one year in Los Angeles County jail.

In September of 1990, Ewing was convicted for petty theft with a prior, and was sentenced to three years probation.

In August of 1992, Ewing was convicted of misdemeanor battery, and given two years probation and ordered to spend 30 days in county jail.

Also in August of 1992, Ewing was convicted separately convicted of theft—again. He was given a year probation and 10 days in jail.

In January of 1993, Ewing was arrested for burglary and obstruction of justice. He was convicted for violating the latter, given one year probation and 60 days in jail.

In February of 1993, Ewing was convicted for possession of drug paraphernalia, granted three years probation and ordered to serve six months in county jail.

In September 1993, Ewing was convicted for appropriating lost property after having been charged with petty theft with a prior. He received two years probation and 10 days in jail.

Also in September of 1993, in a separate case, Ewing was convicted of carrying a concealed firearm. This conviction looks suspiciously like armed burglary because it was charged with criminal trespass. At any rate, it was a misdemeanor and he got one year probation and one month in county jail.

In late 1993, Ewing ... (became) a serious and violent felon. On October 22, 1993, he burglarized the apartment of LaFaye Maddox, at night and while she was home in bed. She awoke to find Ewing still there. Ewing took some items of minor value and left his fingerprints on a wine glass. Ewing was convicted of this burglary as Count 4 in the 1993 information.

On the afternoon of November 27, 1993, Lloyd Martinez returned home to his apartment to find that it had been burglarized. Keys to Martinez’ garage and to the apartment security complex had been stolen. The keys were recovered from Ewing when police arrested him. Ewing was convicted of this burglary as Count 3 in the 1993 information.

Early the following morning, at approximately 3:00 a.m., apartment resident Steve Jordan was doing laundry in the laundry room when entered and accosted Jordan. Ewing told him he had a gun and demanded money. The man saw only a flashlight in Ewing’s waist band and tried to shove him away. Ewing stood his ground and instead of going away, produced a knife with a six-inch blade, gained quick compliance by threatening his victim’s life, robbed him of money and credit cards, forced the victim to provide access to his apartment, and fled. Ewing was convicted on this residential robbery and burglary as Counts 1 and 2 of the 1993 information.

For these four violent and serious crimes, Ewing was sentenced to nine years, eight months in state prison.

Ewing was on parole nine months when he committed his present grand theft of expensive golf clubs. The present crime is Ewing’s sixth felony.
--BRIEF ON THE MERITS OF AMICUS CURIAE
--CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION

30 posted on 03/05/2003 8:57:20 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LexBaird
California law requires two of the three felonies to be violent or serious

Thanks for clearing that up. The press, of course, obscures this.

31 posted on 03/05/2003 8:59:02 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: riversarewet
Exactly.

good post.

Somehow I've managed to go my entire life without committing even one felony LOL!

32 posted on 03/05/2003 9:02:12 AM PST by delapaz (now or never!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
The facts about Ewing bring up an obvious question: Why not put a person in jail for the actual violent crimes he committed instead of inventing some "three strikes law" that puts the person in jail based upon stealing something like golf clubs? Being allowed to commit two or three violent crimes before serious jail time sounds like two or three to many violent crimes to me.
33 posted on 03/05/2003 9:03:10 AM PST by FreeTally
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: js1138
you would back a law that includes three violent felonies? heck--i say one violent felony = 3 strikes...

latina4dubya using husband's account
34 posted on 03/05/2003 9:04:41 AM PST by scripter (The validity of faith is linked to it's object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: scripter
Depends on the nature of the violent felony. Certainly armed robbery or armed burglary should result in serious jail time, not a suspended sentence.

In an unrelated brain spasm, I wonder if the clowns who wanted the census adjusted by statistical analysis would go for the scientific observation that only one in ten or a hundred crimes results in conviction -- so one conviction should really equal ten convictions, at least.

35 posted on 03/05/2003 9:10:34 AM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: robertpaulsen
An point to note is that stealing just ONE of those three golf clubs could be prosecuted as grand theft in California.

I agree that this fellow is a big-time loser, but the three-strikes law is not addressing the real problem - the fact that he got so much probation and never much more than 60 days in jail.
36 posted on 03/05/2003 9:14:38 AM PST by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: FreeTally
Funny thing is, it was touted as "Three strikes and its over" for violent criminals. Last year, Jeb and the legislature were trying to add drug possession to the list of "three strikes" which would result in 25-life. Its the old bait and switch.

So, the lesson would be, if you're a dual-felon, put away the bong or face prison.

I love choices, don't you?

37 posted on 03/05/2003 9:16:33 AM PST by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: B-bone
Mr. Ewing can put his criminal skills into practice for the rest of his life as a turd burgular in prison.
38 posted on 03/05/2003 9:16:54 AM PST by finnman69 (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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

i think all the sentencings he received for his prior convictions were grossly disproportionate to his crimes... in addition to that--what a stupid criminal... he wasn't even good at it... reading about him reminded me so much of the way i felt when i first read about Richard Allen Davis (Polly Klaas)... who i believe was the reason behind this law...

latina4dubya
39 posted on 03/05/2003 9:17:41 AM PST by scripter (The validity of faith is linked to it's object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-92 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson