Ewing V California

Ewing v. California

08/31/2009

Court: Supreme Court of the United States •

Procedural Posture:

Year: 2003 Disposition: Affirmed.

Issue: Whether CA’s “Three Strikes You’re Out” law is constitutional under the eighth amendment? And/ or does a 25 to life sentence violate constitutional provisions protecting against cruel and unusual punishment for stealing golf clubs?

Facts: Ewing, the plaintiff, had been convicted of numerous, numerous crimes (for full exposition, see p. 77). Upon his release from jail for residential burglary and robbery, he stole three golf clubs from a country club’s pro shop. A jury convicted him and sentenced to 25 years to life under the Three Strikes law. The SC granted his writ of certiorari and heard the case.

Holding: Hold that a 25 to life sentence for felony grand theft under the three strikes law is not disproportionate to his crime and therefore does not violate the Eighth Amendment.

Reasoning: In light of Ewing's lengthy criminal record, his sentence is not grossly disproportionate. California's three strikes law plays an important role in reducing crime through deterring or incapacitating chronic offenders. Common sense says that those who continue to offend should be subject to lengthy sentences in order to protect society. Numerous studies show that a relatively small number of offenders are responsible for a very disproportionately large share of crime, and that past criminal behavior is an excellent predictor of future crime. Unsurprisingly, there is evidence to show that three strikes may have contributed to California's dramatic drop in crime since the implementation of the law. While California does not have the burden of proving three strike's efficacy, this does place the defendant's sentence in its appropriate context.

Law: It is the responsibility of state legislature to put deterrent penalties into place. The SC will not sit as a “superlegislature” to determine proportionality of punishment (only in rare cases).

08/31/2009