COURT SHOULD UPHOLD 3-STRIKES LAW

The U.S. Supreme Court said last week it will decide how far states can go
in applying their so-called three-strikes-and-you're-out laws. The court
agreed to hear two cases from California that resulted in lengthy prison
sentences for two men convicted of shoplifting.

In one of the two cases, a man named Leandro Andrade was convicted of
stuffing videotapes in his pants at two California Kmart stores. In the
second case, Gary Ewing tried to leave a golf shop with three golf clubs
concealed in his pants leg.

Either of the cases standing alone would have netted the thieves perhaps no
more than a one-year sentence. But each of the two men had been convicted
of two previous felony offenses. Three-strikes-and-you're-out laws are
designed specifically for such repeat offenders.

Twenty-six states have such laws, and 40 states give harsher sentences to
repeat offenders. Only California, though, permits a sentence of up to life
for a third felony offense.

A federal appeals court ruled last year that Andrade's sentence of 50 years
to life was unconstitutional in that it represented cruel and unusual
punishment.

The court's ruling, under appeal by California's attorney general, stopped
short of overturning the state's three-strikes law itself, but applied only
to Andrade's case and others like it. Courts, on the other hand, upheld
Ewing's sentence of 25 years to life. Ewing had four prior convictions for
robbery and burglary.

Ewing's history, it seems to us, offers ample evidence that criminals who
repeatedly escape with light sentences will continue lives of crime that
easily can escalate into violence.

In Andrade's case, the appeals court found the punishment "grossly
disproportionate" to the theft of $150 worth of videotapes, and said
Supreme Court rulings require a trial judge to examine whether punishment
fits the crime.

But to base the decision on only Andrade's most recent thefts without
factoring in his prior criminal record ignores the reason for three-strikes
laws and disproportionately devalues the public interest in favor of criminals.

California voters approved their state's three-strikes law largely in
response to the kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas by Richard
Allen Davis, a repeat offender on parole.

Twenty-five other states and the federal government passed similar laws
mostly in response to the spread of crack cocaine and public fears about
violent crime.

We hope the high court upholds these laws as written. If repeat offenders
want to escape the harsh punishments prescribed under such laws, all they
have to do is become law-abiding citizens.