Posted on 03/06/2003 6:59:25 PM PST by 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.
And just where does this "truth" come from?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.