Three Strikes & You're Out: California Law and Crime

Evaluation of the issues and resolutions of the questions surrounds the validity of the “three strikes” laws as applied to criminals. 

“A far greater factor is the deterrent effect of swift and certain consequences: swift arrest, prompt trial, certain penalty and – at some point – finality of judgment.”
The honorable former Chief Justice Warren Burger 

In 2003, the United States Supreme Court, on a writ of certiorari, reversed a Federal Appeals Court case that dealt with California’s application of the “three strikes” law. The three strikes law, much like the Rockefeller drug laws of New York, removes discretion from judges and juries responsible for sentencing convicted criminals. The law requires that criminals who have been convicted of a felony three times will be subjected to strict punishment on the third felony or “strike.” California Penal Code governs that three felony crimes demand a mandatory 25-year to life sentence in prison for each strike on the third and subsequent strikes. 

Though statistics have proven a reduction in crime since the enactment of the “three strikes” law, some lawyers are questioning the validity of the required sentencing against the eighth amendment that states cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted. In the eyes of some, this means that the punishment of 25 years to life is excessive punishment for crimes such as unarmed theft. In addition to questions surrounding the Eighth Amendment law other issues with the “three strikes” law include consecutive sentencing, strike priors and enhancements. These issues were addressed by the Supreme Court in their opinion in Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63; 123 S. Ct.1166; 155 L. Ed 2d 122; (2003).