Narrow Supreme Court Decision Upholds "Three Strike" Law
Feature Story by civilrights.org staff - 3/25/2003
The Supreme Court rejected two constitutional challenges to California's controversial "three strikes" law, in a deeply divided 5-4 decision. This decision is seen by many as the latest example of the Rehnquist Court's drive toward a broader conception of "states' rights," that leaves little or no room for federal standards as a constitutional check on state action."Three strikes" laws were first enacted by state legislatures in reaction to crimes such as those committed against Polly Klaas, the 12 year old girl who was kidnapped and murdered in October 1993 by Richard Allen Davis, a repeat offender who had served only half of his possible prison time. The voters of California overwhelmingly supported the "three strikes" law one year later.
The California "three strikes" law, arguably the harshest in the country, provides that a person convicted of two felonies can be sentenced to a mandatory 25 years in prison for their third crime. But unlike many other states, which require the third "strike" to be a violent or at least a serious felony to trigger the harsh mandatory sentence, California allows third crimes normally classified as misdemeanors to be counted as felonies for purposes of the "three strikes" trigger.
In the first of the two cases considered by the Court, Lockyer v. Andrade, Leo Andrade was sentenced to 50 years in prison for stealing nine children's videos, worth about $150. In the second, Ewing v. California, Gary A. Ewing was sentenced to a mandatory 25 years in prison for stealing three golf clubs from a pro shop. More than 7,000 people are now in California prisons serving sentences of at least 25 years under the law, including more than 300 whose "third strike" was a petty theft.
The majority opinion in these cases, written by Justice Sandra Day O' Connor, rejected the contention that the sentences at issue were so grossly disproportionate to the crimes committed as to violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Rather, she argued, that given the "long history of felony recidivism" with regard to each of the defendants, the sentences in question were appropriate.
For many critics, punishing a person again for crimes for which a person has already served their time is cruel. In Justice O'Connor's view, however, any criticism of the wisdom of the "three strikes" law is "appropriately directed at the Legislature." California's judgment that recidivists "must be incapacitated" was entitled to judicial deference, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said
Four Justices dissented from the majority's holding in these cases, arguing that California's three strike law violates the 8th Amendment because it authorizes mandatory sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crimes committed. Justice David Souter, writing for the minority in the Andrade case, argued that, "[I]f Andrade's sentence is not disproportionate, the principle has no meaning."
