Controversy over three-strikes laws triggers Supreme Court review
 |
|
||||||||||
The court said it would decide whether the long sentences given to two California men amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. One was sentenced to life in prison for stealing nine videotapes from two Kmart stores; the other was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison for stealing three golf clubs from a pro shop.
"Three-strikes" laws were popular when enacted in California and 25 other states, including Washington, during the mid-1990s. Supporters credit them for much of the recent decline in crime, arguing that the laws take career offenders off the streets.
But as incarceration rates have risen, they have come under fire from civil-rights groups, defense lawyers and even some prosecutors who argue that it is disproportionate to imprison people for decades over offenses that might have merited only a brief jail term under different circumstances.
Most three-strikes laws, such as the one in Washington, require that all the strikes — or convictions — against a defendant be "serious" or "violent." As a result, the laws are not often invoked because the defendants already are subject to long sentences, experts said.
But California's law says "any felony" can trigger the third strike, even petty theft or shoplifting.
Among the nearly 7,000 California inmates who are serving life terms under the law, 331 are there for a third strike that was a petty theft, according to the California Department of Corrections. An additional 603 were charged with a third strike for drug possession.
"California's law swept in large numbers of people who were not necessarily truly serious criminals and certainly didn't have evidence of violence and who were not going to get long sentences," said Malcolm Young, executive director of the Sentencing Project, which advocates prison alternatives.
That's what happened to Gary Albert Ewing and Leandro Andrade, their lawyers say.
Ewing, who previously was convicted of robbery and residential burglary, was sentenced to 25 years to life after his conviction for stealing three $400 golf clubs. Had it not been for the three-strikes law, the offense would have carried a sentence of up to a year in prison.
Andrade, a heroin addict who had been convicted of several nonviolent theft and drug charges, was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for 50 years. Andrade's offense — shoplifting videotapes worth $153 — normally would have been punishable by up to six months in prison.
Ewing lost his appeal, but in Andrade's case, a California-based federal appeals court ruled that his sentence violated the 8th Amendment's prohibition against cruel-and-unusual punishment. Andrade's sentence, the appeals court said, was grossly disproportionate to his crimes.
The Supreme Court, which will consider both cases when it reviews the issue next fall, has long held that a penalty that is grossly disproportionate to the crime violates the 8th Amendment.
"If there's any meaning to that, this would seem to be the grossly disproportionate penalty," said Erwin Chemerinsky, a law professor at the University of Southern California who represents Andrade.
The justices have been presented with the issue before but have declined to get involved. In 1999, Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer indicated they were troubled by the California law's sweep, in the case of a man sentenced to 25 years to life after stealing a bottle of vitamins.
Stevens said at that time that the issue was "obviously substantial." But he said it should first be addressed by a lower federal court or the state's Supreme Court.
Souter and Ginsburg agreed with Stevens, but Breyer wrote separately. He said he agreed with Stevens that the 1999 case raised a "serious question" but said the court should have taken up the issue then.
Justices opt not to rule in age-discrimination case
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court backed away yesterday from a closely watched case about age discrimination.
The justices changed their minds and decided not to rule on whether older employees have rights similar to those of minorities when it comes to discrimination claims. The action puts off a decision that would affect millions of aging workers.
The high court had agreed to consider the question in December, when the country was in a recession and thousands of jobs were being cut. It dismissed the case yesterday with a one-sentence ruling. The unanimous, unsigned decision did not explain the court's reasoning, saying only that it had acted "improvidently" when it chose to hear the case.
The case's dismissal is a defeat for about 120 former Florida Power Corp. employees, who contended they were fired as part of a company effort to change its image and reduce salary and pension costs. More than 70 percent of those laid off during company reorganizations in the 1990s were 40 or older.
Michael Evan Gold, a professor at Cornell University who attended the arguments, said it appeared the conservatives on the court had the votes to have ruled against the fired Florida workers in this appeal. He said more liberal justices seemed to be seeking reasons to dismiss.
"If I were on the court and supported the older workers, I would like this outcome," he said. "I'd like to fight this one another day, another presidency. For older workers this is better than losing it."
Compiled from reports by the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, The Washington Post and The Associated Press.