Supreme Court's Ruling Upholding 'three-Strikes' sentencing

Excerpts From the Supreme Court's Ruling Upholding 'three-Strikes' Sentencing
The Associated Press
Published: Mar 5, 2003

The Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld California's tough "three-strikes" law aimed at keeping repeat criminals behind bars. Here are some excerpts from the 5-4 judgment, and the dissent.
--------------------

From the main opinion, written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justice Anthony Kennedy:

"Between 1993 and 1995, three strikes laws effected a sea change in criminal sentencing throughout the nation. These laws responded to widespread public concerns about crime by targeting the class of offenders who pose the greatest threat to public safety: career criminals."

"When the California legislature enacted the three strikes law, it made a judgment that protecting the public safety requires incapacitating criminals who have already been convicted of at least one serious or violent crime. Nothing in the Eighth Amendment prohibits California from making that choice."

"Ewing was convicted of felony grand theft for stealing nearly $1,200 worth of merchandise after previously having been convicted of at least two 'violent' or 'serious' felonies. Even standing alone, Ewing's theft should not be taken lightly."

"In weighing the gravity of Ewing's offense, we must place on the scales not only his current felony, but also his long history of felony recidivism."

"Ewing's sentence is justified by the state's public-safety interest in incapacitating and deterring recidivist felons, and amply supported by his own long, serious criminal record."

---

From Justice Antonin Scalia's separate opinion concurring in the judgment:

"The plurality is not applying law but evaluating policy. Because I agree that (Ewing's) sentence does not violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments, I concur in the judgment."

---

From a dissenting opinion written by Justice Stephen Breyer and joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

"The Eighth Amendment forbids, as 'cruel and unusual punishment,' prison terms ... that are grossly disproportionate," to the crime, as the high court has interpreted that principle.

"I believe that the case before us is a rare case - one in which a court can say with reasonable confidence that the punishment is grossly disproportionate to the crime."

"Well-publicized instances of shoplifting suggest that the offense is often punished without any prison sentence at all."

Apart from sentences under the three strikes law, California "reserves the sentence that it here imposes upon former-burglar-now-golf-club-thief Ewing, for nonrecidivist, first-degree murderers."

"As to other jurisdictions, we know the following: The United States, bound by the federal sentencing guidelines, would impose upon a recidivist such as Ewing a sentence that, in any ordinary case, would not exceed 18 months in prison."

"Outside the California three strikes context, Ewing's recidivist sentence is virtually unique in its harshness for his offense of conviction, and by a considerable degree."