Cruel and Unusual Punishment, a fundamental right, is granted to us by the United States.
The recent approval of a controversial ballot initiative in California aligns with the 8th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishment.
Proposition 184, also referred to as the three strikes and you’re out law, was authorized on November 9, 1994. Under this recent legislation, individuals who are repeat offenders and commit their third felony offense will be given a mandatory sentence of twenty-five years to life in prison (California p. 67). In accordance with California law, if a defendant has two or more previous felony convictions as defined in subdivision d that have been pled and proven, the duration for the current felony conviction will be an indeterminate term of life imprisonment with a minimum term calculated as three times the punishment provided for each subsequent felony conviction after the two or more prior felony convictions.
The implementation of the three strikes initiative led to a 25-year incarceration in the state prison. This measure obtained approval from 76% of voters and subsequently received legal passage by the State Senate, with only seven members dissenting. The driving force behind this undertaking was the unfortunate demise of Polly Klass at the hands of Richard Allen Davis, an individual with previous criminal convictions.
The state was infuriated by the murder and particularly enraged when they found out that Davis had a lengthy criminal history but still managed to commit the crime. This resulted in demands for new legislation that would ensure lifelong imprisonment for repeat violent offenders. The idea behind these laws received widespread support, making it politically risky for politicians to oppose. As a result, most politicians came together in favor of the initiative.
Despite encountering resistance from civil liberties organizations, their attempts proved futile because of the overwhelming backing from voters. A considerable number of voters were uninformed about the possibility of severe imprisonment for minor infractions that could result from this legislation. Moreover, many voters were unaware of the financial strain linked to enacting such a law. Nevertheless, given the substantial detrimental effects observed during the previous year, it is imperative that we now move forward in revoking it.
When implementing mandatory sentencing, it is crucial to consider the increased costs of housing prisoners in jail. In California, incarcerating an inmate typically costs $20,000 per year (Cost 1), which is equivalent to funding someone’s education at a state college for two to three years. According to Beth Carter’s research, the three strikes law has resulted in the imprisonment of 1,300 individuals for a third offense and 14,000 individuals for a second offense.
The recidivism rate in California is currently at 70%, with nearly 10,000 individuals out of the total 14,000 expected to return to prison for a third strike. To meet the required minimum sentence of twenty-five years for these 1,300 third strike offenders, California will spend $812,500,000 to accommodate them for longer periods. As a result, this means that either expenses in other sectors will be reduced or taxes will need to be increased.
Both options are unpopular among voters. The Justice Department’s budget has increased by a significant 162% since 1987, and prior to the three-strikes law, Ogutu estimated that $100,000,000 per week was required for the national prison system to handle the growing inmate population. Mauer suggests that up to 80% of these prisoners are non-violent offenders, and taxpayers are responsible for their expenses.
Statistics show that 80% of second and third strike offenses are non-violent crimes, with drug offenses making up 23%. The number of individuals convicted with second and third strikes for severe crimes like rape, murder, and kidnapping is only 53 (Carter 1). Despite its costliness, this law proves to be ineffective. Therefore, it is important to consider the impact on non-violent offenders when implementing the three strikes legislation.
The moral dilemma faced by the individuals most affected by this law is evident. Society finds it challenging to rationalize the 25-year imprisonment of drug addicts, which incurs a cost of $20,000 annually. Instead, this money could be allocated towards funding drug rehabilitation centers and alternative programs for young people. The history of the three strikes legislation has revealed a deviation from its initial objective despite targeting violent crime specifically. In certain instances, offenders have been convicted with a third strike for relatively minor offenses.
For instance, Steven Gordon, a man, was convicted for his third strike when he stole a wallet containing $100. Despite his previous non-violent offenses, he was still convicted under Franklin 26’s three strikes law. This occurrence is not unique as Franklin provides several examples of individuals being convicted for non-violent crimes under this legislation 26.
The text above emphasizes that the three strikes legislation is unfairly targeting non-violent offenders instead of its intended focus on violent criminals. After one year since its implementation, we can see the impact of this extensive legislation on society. Although it was enacted with public support, it has not achieved the people’s intentions.
Originally, there was a widespread desire for a law that would ensure lifelong imprisonment for dangerous repeat offenders. However, current circumstances have resulted in an escalating number of non-violent offenders being incarcerated for lengthy periods. While it is easy to rationalize the expense of removing a violent threat from our community, it becomes challenging to justify the cost of imprisoning individuals who only pose harm to themselves. Consequently, it is imperative that we carefully assess the effects of this legislation thus far.
There is a widespread belief that the three strikes law is inhumane and excessive since it has resulted in a greater incarceration of non-violent criminals than violent ones. As a result, the United States has taken two recent actions to address this issue.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the sentences imposed on two criminals were inhumane and atypical. The court highlighted the discrepancy between the severity of their crimes and the length of their imprisonment. It specifically deemed a 25-year prison term excessive for minor theft or non-violent offenses. Laurie Levenson, an expert in law from Loyola Law School, noted that this decision broadens the possibilities for contesting lengthy sentences under the three strikes law.
According to the California Bar, there are currently 340 individuals serving sentences from 25 years to life for petty theft. This is because of California’s three-strike law, where a defendant receives a minimum 25-year prison sentence for having three qualifying felonies, with the first two being serious or violent. However, the controversy stems from the fact that the third strike can be as minor as a theft felony.
Legislation is evolving due to complaints about the unfair sentencing for minor offenses, which is considered cruel and unusual punishment. Democrat Jackie Goldberg from Los Angeles has recently introduced new legislation that mandates the third strike to be a serious or violent felony. Citizen Against Violent Crimes (CAVC) and other organizations advocate for all strikes to be violent felonies.
The law is a concern due to the lack of proportionality between the punishments and crimes committed. Circuit court Judge Joseph T. Sneed acknowledges that these sentences have been mandated by California’s citizens and legislators. He emphasizes the importance of respecting this decision, as it reflects a strong belief among Californians in imposing severe, mandatory sentences for repeat offenders.
A groundbreaking ruling by a US appeals court has declared that a lengthy sentence given under the law is considered to be cruel and unusual punishment. This decision has sparked discussions about the validity of rigid mandatory sentences. In February 2002, a federal appeals court invalidated a section of California’s three-strikes law by deeming it inhumane to impose life imprisonment for shoplifting. As a result, the convictions of 340 individuals in California who were serving life sentences for shoplifting under this law will be reversed.
Despite the rise in imprisonment rates, three-strikes laws have faced criticism from various parties including civil rights groups, defense lawyers, and even some prosecutors. These critics contend that it is unjust to incarcerate individuals for extended periods of time for crimes that could have resulted in a shorter jail term under different circumstances. A case highlighted by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals involved a man who received a sentence of 50 years to life in prison as his third offense for stealing $153 worth of videotapes from a department store, which was viewed as cruel and unusual punishment.
For the first time, a court has ruled that the three-strikes law is unconstitutional, deeming it to be cruel and unusual punishment. It is crucial in our criminal justice system for the severity of punishment to correspond with the crime committed. Even if offenses are repeated, it would not be justifiable to impose execution or lifelong imprisonment for minor infractions. The principle of “proportionality,” outlined in the Eighth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, prohibits excessive bail, fines, and cruel and unusual punishments.
Many proposals for “3 Strikes” laws do not consider the severity of the crime. In California, certain proposals require that the first two offenses be classified as “violent,” but allow the third offense to include any felony, including non-violent crimes such as petty theft. These laws go against our constitutional principles. A study by the Sentencing Project reveals that California’s three-strikes law, which mandates a minimum sentence of 25 years to life for individuals convicted of three felonies, has not significantly decreased crime rates.
According to author Marc Mauer, the decline in crime rates prior to California’s implementation of the three-strikes law aligns with national trends observed in states without a similar law. Critics argue that this law disproportionately affects non-violent drug offenders and results in excessively severe sentences. Although 71 percent of California voters support it, a recent survey indicates that many Californians are unsure about its full implications. While 93 percent of respondents agree that individuals convicted of three violent or serious felonies should be sentenced to 25 years to life, only 65 percent share the same view for those convicted of three serious drug crimes. Additionally, just 47 percent believe that someone committing three serious property crimes should receive a life sentence, and only 13 percent support a life sentence for someone found guilty of three “less serious” property crimes.
It seems that Californians may have misinterpreted the consequences of their vote based on statistics. Although they initially backed a seemingly beneficial law, concerns about its wisdom have emerged. The unforeseen severity of penalties, such as 25 years to life imprisonment for shoplifting, was not anticipated. Furthermore, the surprising expansion of these convictions to minor felonies or trivial offenses was also unexpected.
The intention behind this law was to penalize significant offenses rather than minor ones. However, numerous individuals now feel remorseful about enacting this legislation and must endure the repercussions.
