University:
John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Course:
LAW 209 | Criminal Law
Academic year:

2020
Views:

318

Pages:

2
Author:

Alma Stephenson

● Rule ○ Sentencing a repeat felon to 25 years imprisonment under a state’s three strikes law does not violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. ● Facts ○ Gary Ewing (defendant) was arrested for stealing golf clubs worth $1,200. Ewing had prior convictions, including three burglaries and a robbery. Under California’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out Law,” defendants with more than two violent or serious felonies are sentenced to “an indeterminate term of life imprisonment.” Some crimes may be deemed felonies or misdemeanors at the discretion of the prosecutor and the court. Courts may also avoid the three strikes rule by vacating allegations of earlier serious or violent felonies. Ewing was charged with felony grand theft, and the prosecutor invoked the three strikes law. The trial court did not exercise its discretion to reduce the charge or vacate earlier allegations. Ewing was convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life imprisonment. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the sentence violated the Eighth Amendment. ● Issue ○ Does sentencing a repeat felon to 25 years imprisonment under a state’s three strikes law violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment? ● Holding & Reasoning ○ No. The Constitution does not prohibit a 25-year sentence for serious, habitual offenders. The principle of proportionality that forms part of the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment was limited by Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991), for cases not involving the death penalty. The state interest in protecting public safety from habitual offenders spawned three strikes laws across the country. California’s law reflects the policy choice of the legislature to remove repeat violent or serious offenders from society. About 67 percent of offenders released from prison will commit another serious crime within three years. Recidivism laws further the goals of incapacitation and deterrence. California saw a 25 percent drop in the recidivism rate following the passage of the law. California’s legislature bears the responsibility for assessing the law’s prudence, and this Court is satisfied that the state had a reasonable basis for believing the law promotes its goals. In this case, there is no great disproportion between the seriousness of the offense and the sentence. Ewing was convicted of stealing items worth $1,200 after four serious or violent felonies. The sentence is warranted by California’s interest in protecting the public from repeat offenders like Ewing through incapacitation and deterrence. Thus, Ewing’s sentence is affirmed.