Posted on 03/08/2005 8:56:06 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
Supreme Court ruling puts '3 strikes, out' laws in doubt Court limits prior conviction evidence Tuesday, March 08, 2005 By Michael McGough, Post-Gazette National Bureau WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court, which last summer threw federal criminal sentencing into confusion with a ruling that it took seven months to clarify, created additional uncertainty yesterday with a decision dealing with the role of prior convictions in setting punishment for a new crime. At risk, at least in the view of some legal observers, are "three strikes and you're out" laws that impose harsh penalties on repeat violent offenders. In another decision, the court made it easier for prisoners to challenge denials of parole using a civil rights law passed after the Civil War. In the sentencing case, the justices ruled 5-3 (with Chief Justice William Rehnquist not participating) that a Massachusetts man who pleaded guilty to a firearms charge could not receive an extra 12 years in prison as a "career criminal" because of inadequate proof that his prior convictions were for violent felonies.
(Excerpt) Read more at post-gazette.com ...
They have obviously been out to get the current federal sentencing rules (on which many state sentencing schemes are based) for some time now. Major changes, they are acomin'.
We must not be too hard on our worst felonious criminals -- the Supreme Court is out of control, being dominated by weasel-worded liberal thinking, as opposed to focus on the laws and the Constitution of this country.
This is A VERY MAJOR PROBLEM FOR THIS COUNTRY and its Constitution.
Let's give the supreme court a two year vacation. Bush will make a couple of appointments. The retirees will get our thanx and depreciation and we'll start all over.
Thanks for the interesting post. I am no lawyer, but I can tell you, three strikes works in California. We have seen a dramatic drop in crime over the 30 years I have been here.
I hope these abominable 3-strikes laws are struck down as they should be. Maybe then we will stop handing more and more power to judicial oligarchs and force legislatures to actually conduct the business for which they are paid.
Maybe I'm missing your point. The legislatures are the ones that passed "Three Strikes" & unelected judges are the ones striking it down.
Now I understand why the frenchies had a case of guillotine madness at the Bastille.
The legislatures have a responsibility to make sure crimes are punished; they have failed to do so, in permitting inadequate sentencing for crimes; in frustration the people have supported 3-strikes. While I totally agree with the frustration, it is necessary to make laws in accordance with our Constitution regardless of popular passions; that is what distinguishes a republican people from a democratic mob. If the legislatures did their job and crafted laws which properly punished crime, 3-strikes would be moot because practically everyone who qualified would be serving the time they should have been serving in the first place.
Three strikes is a remedy for a problem created by light sentences. It was never the best answer. When the first time in prison is so bad that the the criminals don't want to go back, we won't have to worry about them doing it three times before they end up there for a long, long time.
They need to get out of jail with a look in their eye that says, "Where I just been you don't want to go."
The legislature is not passing tough enough laws for the crimes that are committed. In that, they are not doing their jobs.
As far as the unelected judges flaunting the law with their rulings - at least those at less than the top court level - the state legislatures simply need to tell them them, sorry, you don't have jurisdiction here and ignore the ruling. The elected representatives most certainly are leaving it up to the courts to make law and abdicating their responsibilities.
Excellent post. An example of why FR is so valuable a forum. You will never get such a correct and to the point explanation on the nightly news or in many other media outlets as you have offered.
To some degree, you're right. But the problem in your reasoning comes in when the first crime (or strike) was for a lesser crime. For example, if someone commits burglary but later moves up to armed robbery, they have gotten more violent and maybe the escalation in crime and the fact that they have shown an inability to stop committing crime after the first time needs to be factored in. But at the point when all they had committed was the first offense, there was no reason to punish them more heavily because they had not yet shown the escalating violence and inability to conform to the law on a repeat basis.
With armed robbery, the answer may be to just punish all armed robberies, be they a first, second, or third offense, more seriously. But what if the third crime is a lesser offense than the first two--there is still a pattern there and an ongoing disregard for the law.
In a perfect world, I agree with you that the punishments for each individual crime would be enough to stop any future crimes. But unfortunately, even in states that have harsher sentences, repeat crimes happen.
That's a hellaciously cogent argument.
Senility is the only rational explination.
They must inevitably breach the 8th because a cruel and unusual sentence will at some point result in a life (or other excessive) sentence for the most minor of felonies. (There's a 26-to-life perjury sentence that was being discussed here yesterday which appears to have initiated much of the current discussion on the issue.) They will also breach the equal-protection clause in that two different people committing the same crime will due to this law face radically different penalties.
I wonder what would happen if a repeat rapist raped the wife or daughter of one of the liberal pukes on the USSC. I wonder what would happen if the son of one of the lefties on the USSC were mudered during a botched robbery by a three time loser with priors that included weapons. Until some of these elites are affected by everyday criminal acts, they just won't get it.
I'm sorry for your loss. Could you share your story of having family members raped or murdered?
Yes, major changes are coming .. but it won't be because the USSC made some eroneous ruling .. it will be because the public is fed up with this judge activism garbage and we are going to force our legislatures to stand up and be counted over it.
When USA judges start using INTERNATIONAL LAW to adjudicate issues - they are off the wall and NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE - and the legislature can do that!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.