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.
I fully agree with that. But I thiunk the better approach is to give them tougher sentences early, so that they will learn (if capable). I do agree with the basic concept of three strikes. But, as it is written, it has some weaknesses and thus anecdotes will pop up from time to time which makes the law seem grossly unfair. On the whole it is not, but occassionally it may be.
LOL, good one!
Consider this: The law was enacted because the legal system as it was, was not a serious legal system. That is sentencing was too light, probations to easy, reduced plea bargains to easily given.
Thus the law was enacted (via the proposition method) in an attempt to make the system a serious judicial system. The problem stems from (and this is too common)the fact that when the public is finally fed up and reacts, the reaction is an over reaction. The fault is not the legal system, the fault lies with the legislative branch who refuses to respond to public need.
The entire Calif. Proposition methodology exists because the legislature fails, in too many instances, to do their job.
Umm, sure it is. The oversized AA who stole the slice of pizza was a long term career criminal. He stole the entire pizza at Redondo Beach from a group of small children while their parents where at the edge of the water. How'd you like your kids to keep that lasting memory?
BTW, the guy they suspect is involved in the Kristi Johnson murder was just paroled 5 weeks ago after serving 3+ years for sexual assualt. Why don't you offer your liberal condolences to her mother since you're such an expert on crime and punishment?
Yes it can. This law is blissfully blind to whether the career is worsening (as it obviously was in Ewing).
It is funny that Scalia voted for it, because in his Slouching Towards Gomorrah he said he didn't believe the statistics showed that it did any good. Apparently by the time a person gets 3-striked, they are usually old enough that the normal prison sentence would see them to an age at which they are unlikely to commit more violent crimes anyhow.
There are so many B.S. things that can count as felonies, is the problem. Ever pull an obscene page up in your web browser because of a typo that got you to a porn site, or a Google search which didn't reveal the character of just what it was it found? (If you clear your cookies, Google's SafeSearch text filtering goes away.) That's a rap which would be sufficient, were the gummint spying on his internet connection. Or, someone slip drugs into your coat pocket; it can be difficult to prove you didn't know they were there.
South Carolina has a "three strikes" law for simple possession. This includes paraphenelia. The penalty for #1 and #2 is a small fine, a ticket. Nothing more. The third time, its mandatory time in State prison. The only way around it is to cry and plead to the judge to send you to rehab because you "have a problem".
I knew a guy who lived there for a while, and made unfortunate bad decisions about who he would hang out with. He had smoked weed for years, and never had legal trouble. He got popped twice for possession, and pretty much moved to another State so that he didn't risk going to prison over some silly incident outside his control. Its craziness.
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.