Monday, January 14, 2008

Three Strikes Article

Cost of 'three strikes' law

Friday, March 5, 2004

IT HAS been 10 years since California voters approved the "three strikes'' law in an effort to get tough on crime, propelled in part by the kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas of Petaluma by parolee Richard Allen Davis.

The law was supposed to sweep career criminals off the street by mandating sentences of 25 years to life, without possibility of parole, for anyone with two ''strikes'' -- serious or violent felony convictions -- convicted of any new felony.

But studies by criminal-justice experts show the law to be unduly costly, overly punitive, racially discriminatory -- and failing its primary mission to curb crime.

With 57 percent of the third strikes being nonviolent offenses, typically drug violations or burglary, the law largely hasn't necessarily targeted the most dangerous criminals. Third strikes are 10 times more likely to be for a drug offense than for second-degree murder. In fact, third-strikers sent to prison on a drug offense outnumber the combined total whose offense was assault, rape and second-degree murder, according to the Justice Policy Institute, a research and public policy group that has been critical of the law.

The institute's 10-year analysis of the law also found African Americans and Latinos were far more likely to be imprisoned than white offenders for the same third-strike crimes.

Since 1994, the number of inmates in the state prison system grew by 22.6 percent. One in four prisoners -- 42,000 inmates -- are serving life terms under the three-strikes law. About $8.1 billion was spent to house these third- strikers -- $4.7 billion for convicts whose third strike was not a violent crime.

"We're filling our prisons with people who don't belong there,'' said Assemblywoman Jackie Goldberg, D-Los Angeles, whose reform attempts have been routinely rebuffed. "You can get less time for second-degree murder than for stealing a six-pack of beer. It's not what the public had in mind.''

Only the voters can repeal the three-strikes law. But the California Legislature, which has the authority to make changes consistent with its intent, should have the courage to at least require that the third strike be a violent crime.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/03/05/EDGHR5DO0C1.DTL

This article appeared on page A - 28 of the San Francisco Chronicle
Supreme Court Upholds 'Three Strikes' Law
NewsMax.com Wires
Wednesday, March 5, 2003
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court, in two 5-4 votes today, upheld California's "Three Strikes and You're Out" law.
The rulings came in cases in which two repeat offenders were sentenced to prison terms of 25 years and longer after stealing golf clubs and videotapes.

The court split along ideological lines, with the four liberals dissenting in each case and moderate conservative Justice Sandra Day O'Connor writing the opinion supporting the judgment for the five-member conservative majorities.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Anthony Kennedy signed on to O'Connor's opinion and reasoning. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the judgment, but for different reasons.

O'Connor said that the decision to imprison repeat offenders for 25 years to life after three violent or serious offenses was "a deliberate policy choice" of the California Legislature.

"Any criticism of the law should be directed at the Legislature," O'Connor said. One defendant's "sentence is long, but so is his criminal history."

The Eighth Amendment itself does not require the states to choose a particular philosophy of punishment, and the three-strikes law is "a rational legislative judgment."

Speaking for herself, Rehnquist and Kennedy in the first case, O'Connor said the prevailing opinion held that the sentence "is not grossly disproportionate and therefore does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments."

In his separate concurring opinion, Scalia said the Eighth Amendment bans only certain kinds of punishment, not lengths of prison terms. Thomas said the Eighth Amendment does not contain a "grossly improportionate" principle.

Speaking for the dissenters, Justice Stephen Breyer said the legal question in one case was indeed whether the sentence was "grossly improportionate" to the offense.

"Outside contemporary California, this sentence is truly unusual," Breyer said.

Also, first-time perpetrators of more serious crimes normally receive less prison time, Breyer said, even in California.

How to Be a Loser

Each of the two cases decided Wednesday reads like a study in how to be a loser.

The first involves Gary Albert Ewing, who stuffed three golf clubs down his pants at a golf shop in Los Angeles County.

According to court records, Ewing told a shop employee he was headed to the driving range. Instead he went to his car in the parking lot. His stiff-legged limp drew the employee's suspicions.

Police were called and found the three clubs in Ewing's pants. The clubs were valued at $399 each, enough collectively to constitute felony theft.

Ewing was sentenced to 25 years to life because of his criminal history: four prior felony convictions. The California appeals courts upheld the sentence.

In the second case, Leandro Andrade and a female companion entered a Kmart store in Ontario, Calif., on Nov. 4, 1995.

"Andrade looked around, selected some videotapes and stuffed them inside his trousers," the state's petition to the Supreme Court said. "Andrade looked around again, grabbed some more tapes, and stuffed them inside his trousers."

He made it only as far as the sidewalk in front of the store when he was stopped by security personnel and arrested for shoplifting. The combined value of the merchandise was $84.70.

While that charge was pending, Andrade and two female companions entered a Kmart store in Montclair, Calif., two weeks later.

"Andrade selected a videotape and put it down the waist of his pants," the state's brief said. "Andrade selected two more tapes and went behind a partition."

He was again stopped and detained by store security personnel and charged with shoplifting. The combined value of the merchandise in the second crime was $68.84.

Andrade was convicted by a state jury in San Bernardino, Calif., of two counts of petty theft. The jury determined that Andrade had committed "three prior serious or violent felony convictions" under the meaning of California's three-strikes law.

50 Years of Taxpayer-Supplied Room and Board

A state judge sentenced him to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life. That means he would have to serve 50 years before being considered for parole. The state appeals courts upheld the sentence.

Andrade then took his case to federal court. A U.S. judge rejected his claim that the California law constituted cruel and unusual punishment. Finally, a federal appeals court reversed, saying his sentence was "grossly disproportionate to his misdemeanor thefts of nine videotapes."

The appeals court said Andrade's prior offenses were petty burglaries "enhanced to felonies as allowed under the California Penal Code, and then enhanced again to third and fourth strikes under California's Three Strikes and You're Out Law."

If Andrade's sentence were allowed to stand, the appeals court said, he "would not become eligible for parole until 2046, after serving 50 years, when he would be 87 years old."

The Supreme Court today upheld the lower court in the Ewing case and reversed the lower court in the Andrade case.

(Nos. 01-6978, Ewing vs. California; and 01-1127, Atty. Gen Lockyer et al. vs. Andrade.)

Pros and Cons Three Strike Law

Is the three-strikes law, which provides mandatory 25-to-life sentences for a third felony conviction, a good idea?
In a Nutshell
Yes
No

It provides a fix for a flawed justice system so that repeat offenders stay in prison.
The law provides a very effective deterrent after the 2nd conviction.
The media distorts the true effectiveness of the law by showing trivial cases (like someone stealing pizza) rather than the usual perpetrators.
The law applies to 3 convictions, not 3 crimes (i.e. criminals may get away with several incidents).
The law destroys the flexibility of the courts and the judge.
It is unjust in certain conditions (victimless crimes, young criminals, etc.).
Criminals often plea bargain their first two convictions.
It is a violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution.
An arrest of someone with two convictions almost guarantees the cost and time of a trial.
The law adds more criminals to an already crowded and expensive prison system.


Related Links
Overview/Background
California has led the charge on a new concept of dealing with repeat offenders--the Three Strikes Law. Under this law, a person who is convicted of three felonies is given a mandatory 25-to-life sentence. A felony is defined as any crime punishable by 1 year or more in prison.

The law has been criticized for applying a one-size-fits-all sentence to repeat offenders. The often noted example is one young man who received the sentence after stealing a pizza. However, advocates of the law quote the large number of repeat offenders that always seem to slip through the justice system without the three-strikes law in force.
Yes
It provides a fix for a flawed justice system so that repeat offenders stay in prison. To many crime victims, the U.S. judicial system has become somewhat of a joke. Evidentiary exception rules, case backlogs, liberal sentences, plea bargaining, and a protect-the-criminal-rather-than-the-victim mentality has far too often let criminals slip through the cracks. Most of the crime nowadays is committed by repeat offenders. The three strikes law is a way to ensure justice is done even if the system otherwise fails miserably.


The law provides a very effective deterrent after the 2nd conviction. Arguments always arise over what is the best deterrent. Is there a better deterrent than the knowledge you will definitely go to jail for at least 25 years if convicted again? This will not only discourage the more serious crime such as rape and armed robbery, it will discourage the more minor offenses of things like burglary. It's not like this law is secret or unknown to the criminals.


The media distorts the true effectiveness of the law by showing trivial cases (like someone stealing pizza) rather than the usual perpetrators. The liberal media obviously has an agenda to push when it portrays poor, helpless felons in jail for the rest of their lives for stealing videos or pizza, or committing some other "harmless" crime. Unfortunately, the stories don't reflect the reality of repeat offender data. With thousands of cases, you're always bound to find exceptions like these. However, the law punishes rapists, armed robbers, extortionists, organized criminals, and more. An objective media portrayal would show the 3 victims of the three-strike criminal and the impact on them.


The law applies to 3 convictions, not 3 crimes (i.e. criminals may get away with several incidents). We all know that in the real world criminals get away with many crimes. The police may not have any clue who committed the crime, the police may not have near enough evidence to prosecute, and the criminal may simply slip through the system with the aid of a slick lawyer. It's a major judicial accomplishment to get one conviction. Thus, when the three-strikes law is applied, it is often applied to a criminal who has committed far more than 3 crimes.


No
The law destroys the flexibility of the courts and the judge. Each criminal offender is different. Each set of crimes is different. The specific reason we have judges, juries, and lawyers is that each situation deserves a fair analysis and punishment. A one-size-fits-all system of judgment destroys the flexibility.


It is unjust in certain conditions (victimless crimes, young criminals, etc.). There are always going to be cases like the stealing videos or pizza that are unjustly subjected to the three-strikes law. You may have an 18-year old who commits three crimes before he's mature enough to make quality decisions. You have 2-time convicted felons who may have been leading decent, upstanding lives being at the wrong place at the wrong time. You may have a sequence of lighter crimes such as burglary, breaking & entering, or stealing a car. Certainly committing these crimes are wrong and deserve punishment; however, is 25 years to life a reasonable punishment (in addition to whatever they were sentenced for the first 2 crimes)?


Criminals often plea bargain their first two convictions. Plea bargains have become the overwhelming choice of prosecutors nowadays. The backlog of cases and high cost of a trial forces the state to use these. Defense attorneys (especially court-appointed ones) overwhelmingly talk their clients into these plea bargains, whether or not they suspect their client is guilty. However, whether a plea bargain is used or a full-blown trial is used, it still goes down on the client's record as a conviction. Offenders may not have agreed to the plea bargains knowing they may one day be subject to the three-strikes law.


It is a violation of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution. The 8th Amendment of the Constitution prohibits the use of "cruel or unjust punishment" by the state. Many would argue that certain clients' prosecution under the law violates the amendment. If just one case violates the amendment, the law is unconstitutional and should be overturned.


An arrest of someone with two convictions almost guarantees the cost and time of a trial. If a 2-time convicted felon is once again arrested, it's pretty much guaranteed that he will push for a trial. If he's guaranteed a 25-to-life sentence, what's the point of pleading guilty? It doesn't matter how many witnesses or how much physical evidence is available, the defendant will likely seek a trial. This adds more time and expense to an already overburdened court system.


The law adds more criminals to an already crowded and expensive prison system. It is expensive to keep a person in jail for life. Prisons are overflowing from the massive growth in their populations. Adding more prisoners (who may not even deserve to be there) to this system just makes matters worse.


Related Links
Three Strikes and You're In
Supreme Court Upholds Three Strikes Law

Pros vs Cons Example

Pros and Cons
Every school is in essence a learning environment. That which aids learning is acceptable, and that which hinders it should be unacceptable. Add to this the fears of school violence and student safety and you can see why many school boards are calling for uniforms. This issue brings up numerous questions:

What is a school uniform?
What are the potential benefits of having school uniforms?
What are the potential problems with having school uniforms?
How can you get parents and students to buy-in to the idea of school uniforms?
What does the Supreme Court have to say on this issue?
Are school uniforms truly effective?1. School Uniforms Defined
School uniforms range from the formal to the informal.



School Uniforms

Some schools that have implemented school uniforms have chosen what one usually thinks of in connection to Catholic schools: nice pants and white shirts for boys, jumpers and white shirts for girls. However, most public schools are turning to something more casual and more acceptable to parents and students: khakis or jeans and knit shirts of varying colors. The latter appear to be more affordable too because they can be used outside of school. Many school districts that have implemented school uniforms have provided some sort of financial assistance for families that can not afford the extra expense.

2. Potential Benefits of School Uniforms
Preventing gang colors, etc. in schools
Decreasing violence and theft because of clothing and shoes
Instilling discipline among students
Reducing need for administrators and teachers to be 'clothes police' (for example, determining whether shorts are too short, etc.)
Reducing distractions for students
Instilling a sense of community
Helping schools recognize those who do not belong on campus

3. Potential problems of School Uniforms
Students and parents argue that uniforms violate their freedom of expression (see below for more about what the Supreme Court has to say on this)
Parents raise concerns about the cost
Families fear it might interfere with religious clothing like yarmulkes

4. Parent and Student Support for Uniforms
Make uniforms more casual - jeans and a knit shirt
Allow students an outlet for their own expression: buttons to support political candidates, but not gang related paraphernalia
Provide financial assistance to those parents who can not afford the uniforms
Accommodate students religious beliefs. This is required by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Make your program voluntary if community pressure is too large
Institute an 'opt-out' provision. Not including this would probably cause a court to rule against your program unless there is proof that lesser measures are ineffective.
Make uniforms an integral part of the school safety program.

5. Supreme Court Rulings
In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School (1969), the court said that a student's freedom of expression in school must be protected unless it would seriously interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline. In the dissenting opinion written by Justice Hugo Black, he said, "If the time has come when pupils of state-supported schools, ..., can defy and flout orders of school officials to keep their minds on their own schoolwork, it is the beginning of a new revolutionary era of permissiveness in this country fostered by the judiciary."

Students are still protected under Tinker. However, with an increase in school violence and gang-related activities, the political climate seems to have turned more conservative, and the Supreme Court has begun to return many decisions back to the discretion of the local school board.

6. Effectiveness of School Uniforms
There are two types of evidence to look at on the issue of effectiveness. One is a statistical study produced by the University of Notre Dame, and the other is the actual words and beliefs of school officials who have implemented school uniforms.

Notre Dame's Department of Sociology produced a study in 1998 concerning school uniforms. Their findings using 10th grade students showed that uniforms have no direct effect on "substance abuse, behavioral problems or attendance." (Brunsma, 1) It also claimed a negative effect on student achievements for those students considered 'pro-school'. (Brunsma, 1)

With that said, we now turn to the less scientific words and thoughts of administrators in schools that have implemented uniform policies. Note that all of the following were from middle schools. In Long Beach, officials found that the year after their mandatory program with parental opt-out was implemented, overall school crime decreased by 36%. In Seattle, Washington, which has a mandatory policy with an opt-out saw a decrease in truancy and tardies. They had also not had a reported incident of theft. As a final example from Baltimore, Maryland, Rhonda Thompson, an official from a middle school that has a voluntary policy noticed a "sense of seriousness about work." Whether any of these results can be directly linked to school uniforms is hard to say. However, it can be said that something has changed to make the officials take notice. We can not discount the coincidence of school uniforms with these changes either. If you would like more information about schools that have implemented uniform policies, see the Department of Education's Manual on School Uniforms.

Schools must educate students in a safe environment. Over time, education has often slipped away as the main focus of schools. As we have unfortunately seen, school safety is such an enormous issue that it is hard to come up with policies that truly work without turning a school into a prison camp. After the events at Columbine where students were singled out partially for what they wore, and after numerous thefts and murders over designer shoes, it is obvious why many school districts want to institute uniforms. We must realize that learning cannot take place without some sense of decorum and discipline. Possibly instituting school uniforms might help bring back that sense of decorum and allow teachers to do what they are hired to do: teach.