Table of ContentsIntroductionHistory of Three Strikes LawsEffects of Three Strikes LawsConstitutional Challenges to Three Strikes LawsEwing v. California, 538 US 11 (2003) Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 US 63 (2003) Portalatin v. Graham (2010)Johnson v. United States (2015)Impact of Three-Strike Laws in the FutureConclusionIntroduction “Three strikes and you’re out” is a famous baseball quote that we all heard growing up. It became a popular rallying cry to denounce the increase in violent and drug-related crimes in the 1980s and 1990s. Politicians running for office made fighting crime their platform. Many states and the federal government have passed harsh sentencing laws without carefully considering all of the effects these laws would have on the criminal justice system. As a result, numerous constitutional challenges have been filed in court. Most have failed. These laws will continue to have effect in the future without change. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayHistory of Three Strike LawsThe 1980s and 1990s brought repeat offender laws into the spotlight, but the first appearance of these types of laws goes back a long way. As early as 1796 (FindLaw, 2010), New York State passed a repeat offender sentencing law providing for harsher sentences for repeat offenders. They were the first in the country. In 1907, New York State added the mandatory life sentence for fourth offenders (FindLaw, 2010). But later the sentence was changed to fifteen years to life in prison in 1932. In 1965, New York revised its criminal law for nonviolent offenders, giving judges more flexibility in choosing a sentence that would not It's not too harsh. In 1988, Ida Ballasiotes' daughter, Diane, was murdered by a work-release sex offender who was walking the streets of Seattle (Seattle Times Company, 1993). When she learned how Washington monitored and sentenced offenders. She decided that repeat offenders needed tougher sentences, so she fought for Washington's Initiative 593 (Seattle Times Company, 1993). The “Three strikes and you’re out” initiative said on the ballot: “Will criminals convicted of the “most serious offenses” three times be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole? (Seattle Times Company, 1993, paragraph 1). Initiative 593 passed with seventy-five percent of the vote. More than 40 crimes were included for the third conviction and the governor's clemency is the only reprieve. California quickly followed Washington with Proposition 184. In 1992, Kimber Reynolds was robbed by two men on a motorcycle. She was shot in the head and later died from her injuries. His father fought to pass a repeat offender law and it was signed by the governor in March 1994. The law was the same as that measure. According to the UC Hastings Scholarship Repository (1994), the measure would: increase sentences for defendants with previous convictions for violent or serious crimes such as rape, theft or burglary (UC Hastings Scholarship Repository, 1994 , p.32). On the second conviction, the sentence is double the normal sentence. If the offender has two or more previous convictions, the penalty is a minimum of three times the normal sentence or 25 years, whichever is longer. The measure would also include previous convictions for minors aged 16or more for certain crimes (UC Hastings Scholarship Deposit, 1994). For a second or third conviction, any crime counts, even petty theft or writing a bad check. The federal government enacted the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) in 1984 (Harvard Law Review, 2015). The ACCA required a 15-year harsher sentence for an offender who committed a gun crime and had at least three prior federal or three-state convictions for serious gun offenses. drug or violent crimes (Harvard Law Review, 2015). The government adopted the three strikes law (Harris, 1995). If an offender is convicted of a serious federal violent crime and has two or more prior convictions, one must be a serious violent crime, the other may be a serious drug offense, require the offender to receive a mandatory life sentence. Tommy Lee Farmer was the first person convicted under federal law. He had participated in a botched supermarket robbery and believed he would face state charges. When he arrived at court and met with his attorney, he was told he was facing federal charges. He would be the first to be convicted under the new federal three-strikes law (Butterfield, 1995). United States Attorney Rapp was able to obtain a grand jury indictment charging Farmer with "interfering with interstate commerce by theft, arguing that the Hy-Vee supermarket was part of a chain of multi-state stores” (Butterfield, 1995, para. 28). Farmer's criminal history includes domestic violence, murder, armed robbery, and conspiracy to commit murder over a 25-year period (Butterfield, 1995). If his case had gone to state court, he would have received an 8-year sentence. Instead, he received a life sentence. In 1994, Timothy L. Tyler was the first person convicted under the federal government's mandatory minimum sentence, where your third felony strike gets you a life sentence (Fuchs, 2013). His first two charges were non-violent drug charges and he received no jail time. The third charge triggered the federal three strike law (Fuchs, 2013). He was 24 when he sold LSD to a police informant. Tyler suffers from bipolar disorder and has a history of psychosis. He had several psychotic episodes over the past few years and after one he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital. Tyler had delusions and behaved extravagantly. He used acid, sold acid and LSD to family and friends. . We see the effects of this in clogged justice systems, increased costs to the state and federal government, increased violence in prisons, and how the disproportionality of these sentences affects minority populations. Politicians argued that mandatory sentences would deter violent crime and protect society from repeat offenders. Eligible crimes in California included non-violent crimes and in 2005, there were 87,500 second and third strike convictions. The justice systems were already behind schedule. With the introduction of repeat offenders facing life in prison, offenders will want a trial which will increase costs and take a long time. Other crimes are resolved through plea bargains. Plea negotiations take less time and cost less money (Jones, JA, 2012). The increase in costs does not only come from the justice system, it also includes the prison system.New prisons had to be built and more staff hired. Health care costs increase as inmates age. With overcrowded prisons, tensions rise and create more problems. Common areas are transformed into dormitories, individual cells become accommodation for two or three inmates, privacy becomes a problem. Money for programs decreases as the population increases. Inmates may not receive job training or substance abuse treatment, which could lead to an increased likelihood of committing new crimes ACLU (2019). Violence against police officers could increase because when an offender faces his third strike and a mandatory life sentence, he has nothing. lose, which could result in resisting arrest, death of witnesses or escape attempts. According to the ACLU (2019), “African American men, in particular, are overrepresented in all criminal justice statistics: arrests, victimizations, incarcerations, and executions” (para. 13). The war on drugs has affected the African American population, even though studies have shown that drug use among blacks and whites is comparable. Police are more concentrated in minority inner-city neighborhoods where drug trafficking takes place on the streets. In the suburbs, drug trafficking occurs in homes or out of sight.Constitutional challenges to three-strikes lawsOver the years, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has agreed to hear three-strikes cases ( habitual offenders). They challenged state and federal laws. The court upheld numerous challenges. Four cases are presented here, three challenging the state and one the federal government. Ewing v. California, 538 US 11 (2003) and Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 US 63 (2003) are two cases decided on the same day by SCOTUS, both challenging that California's three strikes law violates the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment. possession of a firearm and many others. On March 12, 2000, while on parole, Ewing stole three golf clubs worth $399.00 (FindLaw, 2003). He was convicted of one count of grand theft, and under California law he is sentenced to 25 years to life in prison due to his prior felony convictions (FindLaw, 2003). Ewing appealed his conviction, questioning whether his sentence was grossly disproportionate to the crime it was. found guilty and therefore violated the cruel and unusual protections of the Eighth Amendment. SCOTUS held that California's three strike law did not violate the protections of the Eighth Amendment (FindLaw, 2003). The court based its decision on Rummel v. Estelle (1980) and stated that "the Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between the crime and the punishment [but] only prohibits extreme punishments that are 'manifestly disproportionate'" in relation to crime. Lockyer v Andrade, 538 US 63 (2003) Leandro Andrade stole video tapes from two different Kmart stores worth approximately $150.00” (FindLaw, 2003). He was arrested, charged and convicted of two counts of petit larceny. For prior crimes, he received two consecutive sentences of 25 years to life under California's three-strikes law” (FindLaw, 2003). He appealed to the California Court of Appeal, claiming his conviction violated the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. He then appealed to the California Supreme Court, but it denied discretionary review” (FindLaw, 2003para.1). Andrade's next stop was Federal District Court; however, “they denied his petition for habeas corpus, but the Ninth Circuit granted him a certificate of appeal regarding his claim that his sentence violated the cruel and unusual protections of the Eighth Amendment and was overturned” (FindLaw, 2003 para. 1). The State of California appealed to SCOTUS to ask whether the Ninth District erred in its decision. SCOTUS ruled yes and reversed the previous decision. “The two twenty-five consecutive years of life sentence for a third conviction are not grossly disproportionate to the crime and do not violate the cruel and unusual protection of the Eighth Amendment.” Portalatin v. Graham (2010) Portalatin v. Graham (2010) was decided with Phillips v. Artus and Morris v. Arthur. The three offenders were convicted separately, but all were sentenced under New York's Persistent Felony Offender Statute (PFO) (FindLaw, 2010). The appeals were combined because they involved the same legal question: "whether New York's system of sentencing repeat offenders runs counter to the Supreme Court's decision in Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296 (2004)” (FindLaw, 2010, para. 36). The court held that it did not and “held that the state courts had not unreasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court precedent in upholding the convictions.” Johnson v. United States (2015) In Johnson v. United States (2015), Samuel James Johnson was a convicted felon with an extensive criminal history. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began investigating him in 2010 due to his involvement in a known white supremacist group called the National Socialist Movement (Harvard Law Review, 2015). The FBI suspected the group of preparing attacks deemed terrorist. In November 2010, Johnson "disclosed to undercover FBI agents that he manufactured napalm, silencers and other explosives" and that he owned a .22-caliber semi-automatic assault rifle and a firearm. .45 caliber semi-automatic handgun” (Harvard Law Review, 2015, para. 2). He also showed officers his AK-47 rifle and 1,100 rounds of ammunition. John was arrested and charged in April 2012 with six counts of armed career criminal in possession of a firearm and felon in possession of ammunition. Johnson pleaded guilty to one count of felony possession of a firearm (Harvard Law Review, 2015). Johnson has two previous convictions for simple thefts and a conviction for possession of a short-barreled shotgun. These convictions were classified as violent crimes and therefore, under the Armed Criminal Careers Act (ACCA), he was considered an armed career criminal and was sentenced to 180 months imprisonment with five years of supervised release (Harvard Law Review, 2015). Johnson appealed with the following two arguments: “that his attempted robbery and his underlying firearm possession crimes were not violent crimes warranting an ACCA sentencing enhancement; and second, that the ACCA was unconstitutionally vague” (Harvard Law Review, 2015, para. 4). The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, based on the precedence established in United States v. . 2012), that possession of a short-barreled shotgun is a violent crime and in United States v. Sawyer 588 F.3d 548 (8th Cir. 2009), simple theft is also a violent crime (Harvard Law Review, 2015, para. .4). The court also held that “the residual clause of the ACCA was not void for vagueness; bound by precedent affirming the constitutionality of the ACCA. The court found.