25 years to Life for stealing golf clubs
GARY EWING TRIED to steal three golf clubs from a California golf pro shop. He was caught and sentenced to 25 years to life.
It’s hard to believe that such harsh sentences could be handed down in the United States in this day and age. Yet, under California’s “three-strikes” law, people convicted of petty theft are facing life sentences.
In California, third-time offenders don’t get any more chances. Anyone who commits three felonies in a row-even if the third offense is a minor felony-automatically receives a sentence of 25 years to life. Both Ewing and Andrade had long criminal records, mostly for stealing.
In November, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to strike down the three-strikes law. Defense attorneys argued such lengthy sentences are “cruel and unusual punishments” that violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“If anything is grossly disproportionate, surely it’s sentencing a person to 50 years to life for stealing $152 dollars worth of videotapes,” says Andrade’s attorney Erwin Chemerinsky.
This is the first time the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to California’s three-strikes law.
Lock ‘em up and throw away the key!
When voters in California approved the three strikes law eight years ago, many didn’t have petty thieves in mind. They were thinking of the 1993 murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas.
Richard Allen Davis, a repeat offender, was out on parole when he kidnapped and murdered Klaas. People were outraged that a man who had been released early from prison had committed the brutal crime.
So the state passed a “three strikes and you’re out” law to make sure repeat offenders stayed behind bars where they could do no more harm.
In a brief filed to the Supreme Court, the California District Attorneys Association defended the law.
People serving three-strike sentences, the association wrote, “earned their long sentences because they are the most thick-skulled and predictably wicked of felons.”
California’s Secretary of State Bill Jones helped write the law. Jones says studies showed that 60 percent of the crimes were being committed by only 6 percent of offenders. Locking up repeat offenders, therefore, was a way to reduce crime. Some statistics suggest California crime levels have gone down by 41 percent.
Punishment should fit the crime
Opponents counter that crime rates were dropping nationally before the three-strike law was passed. In fact, they say, crime is on the rise again in California. More recent studies suggest the three-strikes law has had no effect on crime rates.
Even if it was a deterrent, many say, it’s hard to justify keeping people locked up for life for stealing cookies (as in one California case).
“Shoplifting, regardless of the offender’s prior record, is still only shoplifting, and a constitutional sentence must reflect that fact,” wrote Sacramento-based federal Public Defender Quin Denvir in a brief to the court.
People opposed to California’s three-strikes law also find an unlikely ally in Joe Klaas. He was one of the people who pushed hard for the passage of the three-strikes law after the murder of his granddaughter Polly. Now, he’s a vocal opponent of the way the law is being imposed.
“We want the three-strikes law to focus only on violent crime. We don’t think people ought to get 25 years to life for shoplifting. Economically, it’s terrible for a state that’s so much in debt,” says Klaas.
Keeping people locked up in prison is expensive, opponents argue.
“In addition,” Klaas says, “it’s just obscene.”
GARY EWING TRIED to steal three golf clubs from a California golf pro shop. He was caught and sentenced to 25 years to life.
It’s hard to believe that such harsh sentences could be handed down in the United States in this day and age. Yet, under California’s “three-strikes” law, people convicted of petty theft are facing life sentences.
In California, third-time offenders don’t get any more chances. Anyone who commits three felonies in a row-even if the third offense is a minor felony-automatically receives a sentence of 25 years to life. Both Ewing and Andrade had long criminal records, mostly for stealing.
In November, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to strike down the three-strikes law. Defense attorneys argued such lengthy sentences are “cruel and unusual punishments” that violate the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
“If anything is grossly disproportionate, surely it’s sentencing a person to 50 years to life for stealing $152 dollars worth of videotapes,” says Andrade’s attorney Erwin Chemerinsky.
This is the first time the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a challenge to California’s three-strikes law.
Lock ‘em up and throw away the key!
When voters in California approved the three strikes law eight years ago, many didn’t have petty thieves in mind. They were thinking of the 1993 murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas.
Richard Allen Davis, a repeat offender, was out on parole when he kidnapped and murdered Klaas. People were outraged that a man who had been released early from prison had committed the brutal crime.
So the state passed a “three strikes and you’re out” law to make sure repeat offenders stayed behind bars where they could do no more harm.
In a brief filed to the Supreme Court, the California District Attorneys Association defended the law.
People serving three-strike sentences, the association wrote, “earned their long sentences because they are the most thick-skulled and predictably wicked of felons.”
California’s Secretary of State Bill Jones helped write the law. Jones says studies showed that 60 percent of the crimes were being committed by only 6 percent of offenders. Locking up repeat offenders, therefore, was a way to reduce crime. Some statistics suggest California crime levels have gone down by 41 percent.
Punishment should fit the crime
Opponents counter that crime rates were dropping nationally before the three-strike law was passed. In fact, they say, crime is on the rise again in California. More recent studies suggest the three-strikes law has had no effect on crime rates.
Even if it was a deterrent, many say, it’s hard to justify keeping people locked up for life for stealing cookies (as in one California case).
“Shoplifting, regardless of the offender’s prior record, is still only shoplifting, and a constitutional sentence must reflect that fact,” wrote Sacramento-based federal Public Defender Quin Denvir in a brief to the court.
People opposed to California’s three-strikes law also find an unlikely ally in Joe Klaas. He was one of the people who pushed hard for the passage of the three-strikes law after the murder of his granddaughter Polly. Now, he’s a vocal opponent of the way the law is being imposed.
“We want the three-strikes law to focus only on violent crime. We don’t think people ought to get 25 years to life for shoplifting. Economically, it’s terrible for a state that’s so much in debt,” says Klaas.
Keeping people locked up in prison is expensive, opponents argue.
“In addition,” Klaas says, “it’s just obscene.”
