Our
view
Calif.
law cruel and unusual
The U.S. Supreme Court will soon decide
whether two repeat offenders serving prison
sentences have received cruel and unusual
punishment due to California’s three-strikes
law.
An article on cnn.com reports that Leandro
Andrade, who is serving 50 years in prison
for stealing nine videotapes from Kmart,
and Gary Ewing, who is serving a 25-years-to-life
sentence after stealing three golf clubs,
are just two of 7,100 inmates in California’s
prison system serving three-strike sentences.
About 350 of those 7,100 inmates are serving
life sentences for non-violent, petty crimes
like those committed by Andrade and Ewing.
The three-strikes law went into effect on
March 7, 1994 and was approved by almost
75 percent of voters. The purpose of the
law is to increase punishment for persons
convicted of a felony who have previously
been convicted of other felonies. The three-strikes
law requires a 25-years-to-life term and
that felons serve their full sentence.
However, as displayed by the cases of Andrade
and Ewing, the three-strikes law is attaching
extremely disproportionate sentences to
petty, non-violent crimes, and clogging
up prisons because of the 25-years-to-life
term stipulations required by the law.
If the U.S. Supreme Court does decide that
the three-strikes law constitutes cruel
and unusual punishment in cases such as
Andrade’s and Ewing’s, then it will be making
the statement that the three-strikes law
is cruel and unusual when it is applied
to non-violent crimes.
The three-strikes law should never have
passed in its original form in the first
place. Three-strikes-you’re-out should only
apply to violent crimes. As it is now, the
law is retroactive.
California is not only filling up its prisons
with people who shouldn’t be there for 25
years, but it is also possibly creating
violent criminals.
Consider this scenario: A young adult is
caught with enough drugs to be charged with
a felony three times. Under the three-strikes
law he must serve 25 years to life surrounded
by mostly violent criminals; he becomes
friends with them and learns from them.
After 25 years he is released back into
society, “rehabilitated.” What does he do
within the next couple of years? He commits
a violent crime, maybe murder. Surprise,
surprise. This young man was sent to prison
for a non-violent, victimless crime, and
the prison system turned him into, and released
him as a threat to society.
The three-strikes law must be at least changed
to only apply to violent crimes. As it is
currently, it is not beneficial to California.
|
