Three Stirkes And Your Out

A Sentence of Life in Prison for Stealing $150 Worth of Videotapes is Constitutional

A sentence of life in prison for stealing $150 worth of videotapes is constitutional. It is not "grossly disproportional" nor "contrary to, or unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law" (Katsh, William Rose 216). This was decided after a case of a young man receiving two 25 years to life in prison sentences for a multiple theft offense.

Leandro Andrade stole videotapes from two different K-Mart stores in California. These were not his first and only offenses. Andrade was interviewed by a state probation officer and reported that every time he gets out of jail he always seems to do something stupid (Katsh, William Rose 219).

"The defendant admitted committing the offense. The defendant further stated he went into the K-Mart Store to steal videos. He took four of them to sell so he could buy heroin. He has been a heroin addict since 1977. He says when he gets out of jail or prison he always does something

stupid. He admits his addiction controls his life and he steals for his habit."

A 1990 misdemeanor conviction led to the three strikes

sentencing in which Andrade received. Andrade was charged with two counts of petty theft with a prior conviction. California law allows petty theft with a prior conviction to be considered a misdemeanor or a felony, decided at the discretion of the prosecutor (Katsh, William Rose 219).

California's three strikes law allows the idea that any felonies can constitute the third strike, and can subject a defendant to a term of 25 years to life in prison. The prosecutor charged the two counts of Andrade's theft as felonies. Andrade argued that he should only receive one term of 25 years to life in prison because the courts can dismiss strikes on a count-by-count basis (Katsh, William Rose 219).

The three strikes statutes are seen as a way to combat the nation's crime problem. After Polly Klass was murdered, her abductor was found to have a long criminal history yet was never removed from the street. California knew that it was necessary to do something. In March of 1994 the Jones-Costa Bill was put into law. This is a law that doubles your sentence every time you get convicted and then with the third time, you're out. (Harvard Law Review 2123). Three Strikes works to discipline poor and minority intruders, an effect which maintains the delicate veil that separates the "haves" from the "have-nots" (Harvard Law Review 2127).

Also between 1993 and 1995, 24 states enacted, "three strikes and you're out" laws. The crimes that are usually included in this are, murder, rape, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, aggravated assault, and sexual abuse. Some states also include in this law, firearm violations, burglary of occupied dwellings, and simple robbery (Marvell, Charles E. Moody 89).

Both of the articles show how the "three strikes" help to decrease crime. Going back to the constitutional side of three strikes, constitutional or unconstitutional? Each side has a good argument. The argument from those that say that the three strikes law is cruel and unusual punishment, which is taken from the eighth amendment, seem to be confused. Is it not cruel and unusual punishment for our citizens to suffer and be repeatedly affected by these offenders who have multiple chances on the streets but continue to prove