Three strikes law12/24/2023 ![]() The ones relevant to this topic are Double Jeopardy and Ex Post Facto. On appeal the defendant made a number of arguments. Upon reaching the Supreme Court Justice O’Connor wrote the opinion stating “These laws respond to widespread concerns about crime by targeting the class of offenders who pose the greatest risk to public safety: career criminals.” She went on to note that such laws were a “deliberate policy choice” on the part of the State to remove those members of society who “repeatedly engaged in serious or violent criminal behavior.” The Court, in its holding, ultimately rationalized the sentencing as not violating the 8th Amendment by claiming that the purpose of such laws is to respond to individuals who partake in repeat criminal behavior and that as long as there is a rational basis for the 3 strikes sentencing then it will be upheld. Ewing appealed this through the California appellate system claiming, like Andrade, that is was a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Upon his conviction for the grand theft of the golf clubs the trial judge sentenced Ewing to 25 years to life under California’s 3 Strikes Law. ![]() The man who was arrested, Ewing, had been convicted on numerous occasions of crimes ranging from petty theft, to assault, to burglary. This case stemmed from the theft of 3 golf clubs from a country club pro shop in California. The case went to the Supreme Court and the Justices held that in order to be cruel and unusual punishment the penalty must be “contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” In holding against Andrade the Court justified its conclusion that because Andrade had the opportunity for parole it would not be a violation of the 8th Amendment even if he wasn’t eligible for 50 years.Ī similar case brought to the Supreme Court, which was decided on the same day, is Ewing v. Andrade argued that the sentencing was a form of cruel and unusual punishment that violates the 8th Amendment. Upon his conviction for the crime his sentence was deemed to run concurrently, meaning that instead of 25 years to life, under 3 Strikes, he would serve 50 years to life because the two crimes would be compounded. In 1995, on two separate instances, Andrade stole a total of 10 videotapes from two different K-Mart stores. The case involved a man, Andrade, who had been convicted of numerous crimes in the past. In the Supreme Court decision in Lockyer v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |