|
|
| Supreme Court to Review 3-Strikes Sentences |
| By Associated Press |
| Published: 12/10/2002 |
|
The Supreme Court said Monday it will review whether some three-strikes-and-out sentencing laws result in unconstitutionally harsh prison terms, such as up to life behind bars for shoplifting videotapes from Kmart. The court agreed to hear appeals involving two California thieves sentenced to terms ranging from 25 years to life for small-time crimes that might otherwise have meant just a few months in jail. The Supreme Court will consider whether long sentences were unconstitutionally cruel or unusual punishment for a heroin addict who shoplifted videotapes worth $153 and an AIDS patient who shoved three golf clubs down his pants leg and tried to walk out of a pro shop. The court's eventual ruling could be limited to the way the law is applied in California, or it could make a more general statement about how far states may go in using similar laws to win very long prison terms for relatively minor crimes. 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 criminal convicted of a third felony. Critics say the laws are too harsh and inflexible in general, and particularly so in California, which has the nation's strictest three-strikes law. It 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. 'If an individual is charged with growing a single marijuana plant, and he has on his record two qualifying prior convictions, he's dog meat,' said Jerome P. Mullins, a San Jose, Calif., criminal defense lawyer who has had several clients prosecuted under the state three-strikes law. 'He's looking at 25-to-life for growing a plant.' The cases are Lockyer v. Andrade, 01-1127, and Ewing v. California, 01-6978. |

Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think