The Three Strikes Law of California - Term Paper Example

Does “Three Strikes Law” violate the 8th amendments cruel and unusual punishment Clause? The Three Strikes Law of California was passed in response to series of murders and kidnaps. The law is good if only it forbids habitual murderers from mingling with the society. The principle of convicting the same offenders for subsequent lesser crimes is far fetched and against proportionality principle of the Eight Amendment. Length of the term also is cruel and unusual which are not confined to mode alone. The law exposes States’ incapacity to contain crimes by eliminating poverty and unemployment which are the root causes. The judiciary’s shifting the responsibility to legislature without actually justifying the law is a pointer to the dubious nature of the law. In addition, the avoidable life sentences are a great financial burden on the State and tax payer. Hasty enactment of laws in the heat of the moment without much debate and scholarly deliberations in the name of containing serious crimes leads to disastrous consequences. Three Strikes Law is one such impacting the innocents. The state of California enacted Three Strikes Law in early 1994 to punish offenders of murder, rape, hardcore violence with life sentence of 25 years. But in reality, 65 percent of those serving the sentence have been nonviolent offenders. Their offences include possession of drugs. More of such non-violent offenders have been sentenced than who have committed second degree murders. It has become the harshest law of the country. Even in jungle law, no one receives life sentence for shop-lifting. In California 42,445 have been convicted under Three Strikes Law as of September 2003. Sixty five percent of this figure was convicted for non-violent offences As of September 2003, three hundred fifty four people were undergoing life sentences for small thefts below $ 400, 31 year sentence for stealing a pair of batteries, 25 years sentence for shop-lifting, and 25 years sentence to life for abetting a petty theft.(California Three Strikes Law Fact Sheet) There were only 6615 persons in 2001 convicted under Three Strikes Law in California. (Bowers, 2001) Their number went up to 42,445 within a matter of two years. This may be inclusive of the convictions under the second strike as reported by Bowers that 49,469 have been convicted (Data Analysis Unit,2001) Under Eight Amendment, courts’ policy is non-intervention into the legislative decisions since authority emanates from the people. The Scheme of Three Strikes Law It was as a sequel to the kidnapping and killing of a twelve-year old boy, California enacted the law of Three Strikes. Earlier in 1992, a young woman was killed during an attempted robbery in California by a violent, recidivist felon and her father Mike Reynolds made a law proposal called “Three Strikes and you’re out” law.(Dan,1994) The California State Assembly Committee on Public Safety turned down the proposal as it felt to be very harsh. Reynolds got only 20,000 signatures against 385,000 signatures required for the “state initiative process”. But signatures increased soon after an incident of crime in which a home intruder kidnapped a twelve year old girl, after gagging and bounding two other girls at knife point. Two month afterwards in December 1993, the kidnapped girl was found dead. One Richard Allen Davis, who had been twice convicted already and on parole, was suspected. So the repeated crimes generated 800,000 signatures of the citizens. Mike Reynolds intensified his campaign and a bill was passed in 1994 with 72 percent voting in favor in November 1994. (Cal. Statement of Vote) In fact California Legislature had already passed Assembly Bill 971 in March 1994 itself due to public pressure. Thus under the new law, a felon is liable for double sentence on the second strike and a 25 years sentence to life for the third strike. While the first strike must be violent or serious, the second or third strike by the same offender can be punished under Three Strikes Law for even lesser crimes classified as felonies by California law. This is how petty thefts and pick pockets as a third strike can get an offender a sentence under Three Strikes Law. Ewing vs. State of California (2003) The defendant Ewing (2003) was convicted for committing felony of stealing three golf clubs worth$ 399 each while on parole, for 25 years since he had been already convicted for four serious or violent felonies. The trial court refused to give reduction of sentence as provided for the state law offences called “wobblers” classifiable as misdemeanors or felonies. His appeal was rejected by the State Appeal court relying on Rummel v Estelle. (1980). Ewing’s contention was that sentence was grossly disproportionate under the 8th Amendment. State Supreme Court rejected to review the appeal court’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court also held that the sentence could not be considered grossly disproportionate as violating 8th Amendment. Before considering this any further, it would be worthwhile considering the status quo on Three Strikes Law established in two landmark cases below. Rummel v Estelle (1980) This was a Texan case originated in 1974. The offender Rummel was being convicted of a third felony, the earlier two being credit card fraud for $ 80 and forgery of a check of $ 28.36. The third felony was getting money of $ 120.75 falsely in 1973. The charge was that he failed in his promise to repair his acquaintance’s air conditioner and took money for getting a compressor. He never bought the compressor but spent the money. (Lasson, 1980-81) And the punishment was life sentence. The petitioner Rummel argued that his life sentence was disproportionate and constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth and Fourteenth amendments. Although District Court rejected his claim, Court of Appeals held he could be let out on parole within 12 years of sentence. The U.S. Supreme Court on the other hand held that trial court’s life sentence was not cruel and unusual contrary to the Eighth and the Fourteenth Amendments. This was on the ground that Texas State was within its rights to treat the second and third petty larceny as felony theft. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the rights of the state of Texas to treat persons of recidivist tendencies incapable of conforming to the societal rules. For, the recidivist rule was a societal decision in criminal matters in which the court could not interfere. The court however affirmed the lower court’s discretion to let the convictee to go on a parole at the appropriate time. The dissenting judge Thornberry remarked that had he been the prosecutor, he would not have sought the habitual count of three for Rummel. If he were the law maker, he would vote to amend the law to prevent what is being done to Rummel. And, had he been the Governor of Texas, he would have considered Rummel for clemency. But by compulsion of being the judge, he could not think beyond what eight amendment permitted. Solem v Helm (1983) In this one, Helm was sentenced to life imprisonment during 1979 in a South Dakota Court, for uttering a no account check for $ 100. Prescribed punishment for this crime was only five years of imprisonment along with a fine of $5,000. Helm was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole because of his prior six felonies under the State’s recidivist law. Three of them were for third degree burglaries and the rest of them for receiving money under false promises, grand larceny and drunken driving. Having failed to get acquittal from South Dakota’s Supreme Court, he approached Federal District court on the ground that he was subjected to cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by Eight and Fourth Amendments. (State v Helm, 1980) The Federal District Court reversed the decision on the ground of disproportionality. Since the South Dakota’s Supreme Court had held that decision in Rummel v Estelle prevented it from granting any relief to Helm, the Federal court opined that Rummel v Estelle could not be equated to the Helm’s case. It said that Helm in any other State would not have received the similar sentence for the offense committed by him as the third felony except in Nevada and held that life sentence was grossly disproportionate to the offense committed by him. The Eight Amendment prohibits excessive bail, excessive fine, cruel and unusual punishments besides barbaric punishments and sentences disproportionate to the crime committed.(Solem v Helm, 1991) In passing the judgment, the U.S.Supreme court expressed that as per principle of proportionality of punishment for crimes mentioned in English Magna Carta of 1215 that ‘amercements’ should not be excessive. An amercement was similar to a modern-day fine. It was the most common criminal sanction in 13th-century England.) (Pollock & Maitland, 1909) Later, English Bill of Rights also adopted this proportionality principle also adopted by American 8th Amendment. Illinois Juvenile Court Act Under the Illinois Act, a delinquent minor is one who has violated or attempted to violate any federal law, state law or municipal law before his 17th birth day He becomes a habitual juvenile offender if he gets adjudicated twice for offenses which would be felonies as if he had been an adult. He thereafter will become a habitual juvenile offender if he gets adjudicated for the third time for offenses of robbery or armed robbery after January 1, 1980. In re SP v State of Illinois (1996), SP as a juvenile offender was found guilty of attempted armed robbery by the trial court and was committed to Illinois Department of Corrections until his 21st birth day. He argued in his appeal that juvenile act was wrongly applied in his case since his two prior adjudications had no effect of his being declared a ward of the court. He had been first adjudicated delinquent in 1994 and again in 1995. In both the cases, he was declared ward of the court and kept on probation for one year. The present one was the third offense in January 1996 which entitled the State to declare him the habitual juvenile offender. Although the respondent put forth several arguments that his being declared a habitual juvenile offender would not lie since he was not given opportunities to contest his two earlier offenses as would have been applicable to an adult, the court said that mere finding by the court as delinquent offender was sufficient. Further, he at his own peril failed attend the hearings and hence lost chances to avail of the opportunities as applicable to an adult. Ewing vs. State of California (2003) The U.S.Supreme court’s decision upholding the decision of subordinate court has been subjected to criticism. U.S. Supreme court feels that its hands are tied. Instead of interpreting good or bad of the Three Strikes Law, the Supreme Court merely washes off its hands shifting responsibility on the legislators who are representatives of the people and whose will alone shall prevail. The question that has been dealt with in this case is whether Ewing’s sentence is grossly disproportionate in violation of eighth amendment rendering it a cruel and unusual punishment. In Harmelin v Michigan (1991), Justice Kennedy has laid down guiding principles in regard to the proportionality principle saying that the eight amendment has no such strict proportionality requirement. What it forbids is sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime. There need be no strict proportionality requirement between crime and punishment. In the same breath, he has observed the primacy of legislature. The policy behind the Three Strikes Laws in general is that individuals repeatedly indulging in serious and violent acts undeterred by conventional punishments need to be isolated for reasons of public safety. Courts have little say in such policy decisions of the legislatures especially because the Constitution does not prescribe a particular penological principle. According to the judges, Eight Amendment has no bar on the States’ manner of choosing to limit the violent individuals’ capacity to harm the society. The yardstick of at least one conviction for serious crime in the history of the individual is just a policy of benchmarking chosen by the legislature. The courts have to merely carry out the intent of the legislature and any criticism should be directed at the legislature alone. In Ewing’s case, his theft of golf clubs even without any previous history of violence, however small cannot be viewed lightly and would continue to be a felony until and unless the court thinks it fit to brand it as a misdemeanor. The Federal Supreme court has found that trial court has rightly held Ewing’s act in view of his long criminal history. Justice Scalia has said that Eight Amendment only prohibits modes of punishment which have nothing to do with length of punishment. Mode of punishment means putting the prisoner in chains and torturing him in prison etc and not the period of sentence. And that a parallel can be drawn from Solem v Helm. (1983) Court has justified the sentence under three strikes law looking at the dangerous manner in which Ewing had indulged in previous felonies and the aggravating act of committing a grand theft while on parole. In one of the previous acts of felonies, he threatened the victim by brandishing gun and knife and took away the victim’s money and credit cards while the victim ran for safety. Chances were the victim would have been killed or attacked by Ewing if only he had not escaped. Criminal record of Ewing shows that at the age of 22 in 1984, he was charged for theft and sentenced with six months jail (suspended), three years probation and $ 300 fine. Four years later in 1988, he was punished with 1 year jail sentence and three years probation for committing a felony of grand theft auto. Again in 1990, he committed a petty theft and was sentenced to 60 days in jail and probation of three years. In 1992, he was sentenced with 30 days jail and two years probation for battery only to be followed by another theft after 30 days for which he was committed to 10 days jail and one year probation. In January 1993, he was sentenced to 60 days jail and one year probation for committing burglary. Again in September 1993, he was put in jail 30 days and I year probation for possession of fire arm and tress- passing. In November 1993, he made three burglaries and one robbery within a period of five weeks. If the criminal history above is in a tabulated form, it would portray his serious nature. Every time he came out of jail, he committed some crime or other and the sentences have not proved deterrent. This is what led the trial court to sentence him with life imprisonment so that he does not repeat. Victims have all escaped and they could have been easily killed by him on their resistance. His presence in the society is therefore dangerous to public safety. Viewed in this light, it would not appear that the present sentence is disproportionate or against eight amendment as opined by the U.S. Supreme court. Conclusion California was the second state to enact a three strikes law only next to Washington. The track record of the history behind the enactment would show that it was passed amidst high emotional outbursts from the public due to murders that took place at the time. And as long as it serves to be a deterrent punishment to prevent successive murders or serious violence by the individual, it is a good law. It is far fetched to imagine that petty crime committed by a previous offender of a serious crime, would be a danger to public safety warranting punishment under three strikes law. It is tantamount to treating symptoms rather than root causes. It would turn a State despotic without being able to administer the State and solve poverty and unemployment that are the root causes of crimes. Besides, such unavoidable life long sentences are a great financial burden to the Government and the tax payers. References Bowers E Joshua, (2001) The Integrity Of The Game Is Everything": The Problem Of Geographic Disparity In Three Strikes, New York University Law Review, LEXSEE76: NYUL Rev1164, October California’s Three Strikes Law Fact Sheet, Liberty Hill Foundation, ACLU of Southern California, retrieved 22 March 2009 Cal. Statement of Vote, Bill Jones, Cal. Sec’y of State, Statement of Vote, Nov 8, 1994, Gen. Election 107 Dan Morain (1994) Lawmakers Jump on 3 Strikes Bandwagon, L.A. Times, Jan. 31, at A3 cited in Bowers… Data Analysis Unit (2001) Cal. Dept of Corr., Second Strike Cases 7 (Feb. 13) cited in Bowers E Joshua, 2001, The Integrity Of The Game Is Everything": The Problem Of Geographic Disparity In Three Strikes, New York University Law Review, LEXSEE76: NYUL Rev1164, October Ewing V. California (2003) (01-6978) 538 U. S. 11 Harmelin v. Michigan, (1991) 501 U. S. 957, 996-997 In re S.P., a minor v People of the State of Illinois (1996) 705 ILCS 405/5-35 (West 1996) retrievedMarch 2009 Lasson Kenneth (1980-81), Commentary Rummel v Estelle: Mocking birds Among the Brethren, HeinOnline---- 18, American Criminal Law Review 441 Pollock.F & Maitland. F (1909) The History of English Law 513-515 (2d ed. 1909). Retrieved http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=463&invol=277>22 March 2009 Rummel v. Estelle (1980), 445 U.S. 263, accessed 23 March 2009 retrieved 22 March 2009 State v. Helm (1980) 287 N. W. 2d 497, 501 (S. D. 1980) (Henderson, J., dissenting) (quoting Helm). Solem. Warden. South Dakota State Penitentiary v Helm, (1983) 46 U.S.277 Retrieved 23 March 2009 Read More