U.S. Supreme Court Upholds California's "Three Strikes" Law -- California Capitol Hill Bulletin -- Volume 10, Bulletin 6 -- March 13, 2003

In a 5 to 4 ruling this month the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the nation's toughest "three strikes you're out" law that mandates 25 years to life sentences for third felony convictions of offenders with prior criminal records. The issue presented to the Court was whether state laws that mandate long prison terms for repeat offenders are in violation of the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

California's then-novel "three strikes" law was passed by the state legislature in 1994 after it passed a voter referendum with 71 percent support, and is similar to the three-strikes law that the federal government and 25 other states have on the books. The California law is considered to be the toughest in the nation due to the fact that the third conviction does not have to be a violent felony, and can even be a misdemeanor that the prosecution chooses to pursue as a felony. Proponents of the law argue that it has a deterrent effect on crime in the state, and statistics in California show that taking career criminals off the streets has reduced crime. Opponents counter that violent crime has not been reduced as a result of the measure, and that misdemeanor crimes should not be allowed to be prosecuted as felonies. The case justices heard consolidated two cases that came up from California on this issue: Ewing v. California and Lockyer v. Andrade. In both cases the offenders have lengthy criminal backgrounds, and received long sentences for minor theft convictions.

Justice O'Connor wrote a majority opinion, which was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. The majority reasoned that "when the California legislature enacted the three-strikes law, it made a judgement that protecting the public safety requires incapacitating criminals who have already been convicted of at least one serious or violent crime." Dissenting from the majority, Justice Stephen G. Breyer wrote that "the case before us is...one in which a court can say with reasonable confidence that the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the crime." Justice Breyer read his opinion from the bench, a gesture reserved for the cases in which justices disagree especially strongly with the majority, joining his fellow dissenters John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

To expand communications between Washington and California, the California Institute provides periodic faxed bulletins regarding current activity on Capitol Hill which directly impacts our state. Bulletins are published weekly during sessions of Congress, and occasionally during other periods. The e-mail edition is made possible in part by in kind donations from Sun Microsystems and IBM Corp.

The California Institute for Federal Policy Research
A Source of Information on California and Federal Policy
419 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Washington, D.C. 20003
voice: 202-546-3700   fax: 202-546-2390  ransdell@calinst.org    http://www.calinst.org