March 7, 2003
U.S.: Court Upholds 'Three-Strikes' Sentencing
Associated Press

A 25-year prison term would be the kind of sentence handed down to murderers in much of the country — but in California it was meted out to a man who tried to shoplift golf clubs.

By DAVID KRAVETS, Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO - A 25-year prison term would be the kind of sentence handed down to murderers in much of the country — but in California it was meted out to a man who tried to shoplift golf clubs.

On Wednesday the Supreme Court upheld the state's 1994 three-strikes law, the toughest in the nation for repeat offenders, ruling 5-4 that terms of up to life in prison are not too harsh for repeat criminals.

The court also said a term of 50 years to life was not out of bounds for a thief who shoplifted videotapes from Kmart. The tapes, including "Batman Forever" and "Cinderella," were worth $153.

In the golf club case, convicted burglary felon Gary Albert Ewing tried to make off with clubs stuffed down one pant leg at an El Segundo golf shop. He was convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison, with no possibility of parole before 25 years.

"Ewing's sentence is justified by the state's public-safety interest in incapacitating and deterring recidivist felons, and amply supported by his own long, serious criminal record," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) wrote in the main opinion in that case.

Erwin Chemerinsky, the attorney who defended Leandro Andrade, the videotape thief, said he was alarmed by the decision.

"The Supreme Court has said for a century that grossly disproportionate penalties violate the Constitution. If any penalty is disproportionate, it is 50 years with no possibility of parole for shoplifting $152," Chemerinsky said.

In his dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) said the golf club case is a rare example of a sentence so out of proportion to the crime that it is unconstitutional.

"Ewing's sentence is, at a minimum, two to three times the length of sentences that other jurisdictions would impose in similar circumstances," he wrote.

Critics and family members of convicts sentenced under the three-strikes law said they would seek an amendment forbidding lengthy terms for minor offenses.

"We urge all Californians who are offended by today's decision to join this fight and help us put reform on the ballot next year," said Geri Silva, executive director of Families to Amend California's Three Strikes.

California Attorney General Bill Lockyer praised the decision.

"The court's three-strikes ruling affirms California's authority to enact strong public safety laws to protect our residents from repeat offenders," Lockyer said.

The court's decision, while addressing only California's law, is expected to shield similar, but less harsh repeat-offender laws in 25 states that also aim to keep career criminals in jail.

At least 7,000 people have been sentenced under the California law, including more than 300 such as Ewing and Andrade who were hit hard after relatively minor third offenses.

California voters and lawmakers approved the sentencing law largely in response to the kidnapping and killing of schoolgirl Polly Klaas by a paroled repeat criminal.

Every effort to limit California's three-strikes law this legislative season or in the past — for humanitarian or prison cost-cutting reasons — has failed or died from a threatened gubernatorial veto. The California Supreme Court has rejected hearing any challenge that three-strikes is cruel and unusual punishment.

The Supreme Court's decision noted the popularity of three-strikes laws and the public fears about violent crime that led to them. State legislatures should have leeway to keep career criminals away from the public, O'Connor wrote.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. GlobalIssues.Net distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.