Editorial 2: Three strikes law ignores crime severity
The California Three Strikes law, now being challenged before the Supreme Court, is not only unconstitutional, it’s grossly nonsensical.
Under the law, a person can commit two relatively minor offenses but still face 25 years to life in prison, regardless of whether their third offense is murder or videogame theft. The huge disparity within crime severity makes this law an absolutist, unfair method of conveniently locking people up rather than examining the context and impact of the crime.
Why have a three strikes law when people who commit heinous crimes like homicide and serial rape are prosecuted with the intent of securing them extended or life prison terms anyway?
Because politicians get voted into office when they use this measure to depict themselves as “tough on crime,” benefiting from the sensibilities of fear-driven citizens.
Politicians can be just as tough on crime by increasing police forces or helping remedy poverty, but that’s not as catchy or cute as saying “three strikes and you’re out.”
Resigning our justice system to a mechanical and unbending process defeats the purpose of judges and juries assigning fair sentences according to severity and circumstance. It bureaucratizes our legal system so that cruel and unusual punishment is integrated into the system – rather than removed from it.
advertise
contact us
top of page
Comments
Post a comment