Editorial 2: Three strikes law ignores crime severity
By Daily Bruin Staff
Oct. 31, 2002 9:00 p.m.
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.
