|
|
| Supreme Court Appears to Back Three Strikes Law |
| By Reuters |
| Published: 11/18/2002 |
|
Several U.S. Supreme Court justices seemed sympathetic recently to California's 'three strikes' law, which can sentence repeat offenders to life in prison even if their last crime is a minor theft like stealing videotapes or golf clubs. The court grappled with two cases relating to the controversial law, where attorneys for the convicted criminals argued it violated the Constitution by allowing for a punishment that is 'grossly disproportionate' to the crime. In one case, Gary Ewing was appealing a sentence of 25 years to life for stealing three golf clubs worth about $1,200. In the other, Leandro Andrade was convicted of stealing nine videotapes, including two children's films, worth $153. Both men had committed at least two serious prior crimes which led judges to impose harsh penalties under the law. Justice Antonin Scalia said California lawmakers and voters had approved the three-strikes law. He said its whole purpose was to take the 'very disproportionate' number of people who commit the highest proportion of crimes off the streets. 'It seems to me like your client is a very good candidate for that law,' he said to Quin Denvir, the lawyer arguing on behalf of Ewing. 'This is precisely the person you want to get off the streets.' Grand theft, which can be classified as a misdemeanor or felony, normally carries a punishment of up to one year in prison. The judge refused to reduce Ewing's conviction to a misdemeanor and sentenced him based on prior convictions of robbery and burglary. Chief Justice William Rehnquist also appeared wary of overturning the California law. 'Why can't we say ... it's time to get him off the street,' he asked. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a former state legislator, also noted that the Supreme Court had traditionally given states great latitude in sentencing criminals. Justice Stephen Breyer questioned the right to impose harsh sentences for what he called 'trivial' or 'minor' offenses. He said the sentences imposed on Ewing and Andrade appeared to be higher by a factor of two to three times than those imposed for similar cases in other parts of the country. 'That isn't grossly disproportionate?' he asked. Andrade's lawyer, Erwin Chemerinsky, said it was. 'If any sentence is disproportionate it is this. It's not just cruel and unusual -- it's cruel and unique.' A decision in the case is expected next year. |
advertise
|
privacy policy
|
add URL
|
about us
|
terms/disclaimer
|
contact us
|
join our team
|
help
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think