Andrade got the 25 years doubled for two cases of shoplifting, which became his third and fourth strikes under California’s law. His first two strikes were for home burglaries that were committed back in 1983. Neither involved violence. In fact, Andrade didn’t carry a weapon with him for either burglary. [/quote]
So his crimes in CA were non-violent, and his first two strikes occured back in 1983? Before the 3 strikes law was enacted? So the strikes are retro-active, then? Interesting.
Seems like a reasonable list. I’m not inclined to give anyone a break who commits three felonies, no matter how loveable any of those particular felonies might seem to some (sob “He stole Free Willy! Have a heart!” sob).
By the way, apparently California law does allow the prosecution of some juveniles under the three strikes law for particular felonies, if they are over the age of sixteen.
I need to amend that. According to a RAND article I read, the first two strikes must be for serious felonies, but the third strike can be for any felony.
[quote=“Alien”][quote=“Mother Theresa”]
Andrade got the 25 years doubled for two cases of shoplifting, which became his third and fourth strikes under California’s law. His first two strikes were for home burglaries that were committed back in 1983. Neither involved violence. In fact, Andrade didn’t carry a weapon with him for either burglary. [/quote]
So his crimes in CA were non-violent, and his first two strikes occured back in 1983? Before the 3 strikes law was enacted? So the strikes are retro-active, then? Interesting.[/quote]
What’s interesting about it? Sentences of varying lengths are often handed down based on a convict’s prior record, if he or she had one. The California law simply forces the courts to come down on the heavy side if there was a prior record of two serious felonies.
There’s nothing chilling about it. Please tell me where you two came up with this idea that someone’s prior record could not be used as a basis for sentencing any new crime he or she might be convicted of?
Agree that prior felonies are factored into sentencing but this is a chap that got 25 years doubled for two cases of shoplifting! Surely this exceeds the maximum penalty for this offence alone? In that case he had to have been retro sentenced on his prior criminal behaviour . . . which he already did time for! * He was also sentenced under new legislation that took into account his previous felonies but failed to consider that at the time of his previous sentencing there was no such legal entity as the three strikes. In hindsight, might the judge not have been swayed when sentencing him on his prior felonies?* Could the three strikes legislation not tempt judges to charge people for lesser crimes rather than risk this sort of outcome?*
It’s one thing to be tough on crime but it’s quite something else to be shuffling the goal posts.
There’s nothing chilling about it. Please tell me where you two came up with this idea that someone’s prior record could not be used as a basis for sentencing any new crime he or she might be convicted of?[/quote]
But he wasn’t exactly a career criminal if he hadn’t been convicted of theft since 1983. Of course, that doesn’t mean that he didn’ steal. Maybe he just wasn’t caught. Or maybe he didn’t steal at all in that entire period. That isn’t really the point. I just thought these laws were enacted in order to protect the public from those with long and consistent criminal histories.
Despite all your cold, analytical reasoning, please take a minute to quietly contemplate the fact that this poor sucker was convicted and sentenced for his prior, non-violent crimes, he paid his time and was released by the state for having served his full sentences. Then one day, almost 20 years later, he stupidly lifts a few video tapes and now he’s locked up for 50 years as a result.
I can understand how one might argue the 3 strikes laws makes sense for serial rapists and the like (although even then I don’t believe in the law), but in a case such as this it is inconceivable to me that anyone could possibly approve of the sentence. 50 years for petty theft. He’s not a violent criminal who needs to be taken off the streets. 50 years in prison won’t rehabilitate him. It won’t deter him, or others, from petty thievery in the future. It’s not necessary as retribution for his crime. And it’s totally disproportionate to the crime. So what reason could one possibly give for approving of the sentence in this case?
I don’t know the details of the particular case and I don’t trust CBS News’ spin on it. It does seem very harsh, but as I argued earlier the prosecutor may have had very good reasons for pursuing such a harsh sentence rather than charge the man under a lesser offence or not charge him at all. I’m sure if he had been stealing a piece of bread for his starving mom, some legal mechanism would have been used to prevent him from going to jail.
There’s nothing retroactive about it. You are convicted of a particular crime, but your sentence for that crime can be based on many factors, including your past record. If that’s retroactve, then sentencing has always been retroactive.
Judges know a felony conviction is a serious matter, three strikes or no three strikes. Besides, the law was specifically designed to prevent judges from circumventing it. The public in California was so fed up with liberal judges who gave light sentences to career criminals that it took matters into its own hands.
There’s nothing chilling about it. Please tell me where you two came up with this idea that someone’s prior record could not be used as a basis for sentencing any new crime he or she might be convicted of?[/quote]
But he wasn’t exactly a career criminal if he hadn’t been convicted of theft since 1983. Of course, that doesn’t mean that he didn’ steal. Maybe he just wasn’t caught. Or maybe he didn’t steal at all in that entire period. That isn’t really the point. I just thought these laws were enacted in order to protect the public from those with long and consistent criminal histories.[/quote]
Yes, but that’s only partially true. The laws were also enacted to protect the public from judges that freed criminals with a record. That’s why judges, even some very conservative judges, have harshly criticized the three-strikes-and-you’re-out laws.
I don’t buy that description. To balance your liberal CBS news link, here is one from the conservative National Review:
Some background: In November of 1995, Leandro Andrade stole five videotapes worth $84.70 from a Kmart store in Ontario, California. Two weeks later he boosted four more tapes, these valued at $68.84, from a Kmart in Montclair, California. He was apprehended by store security guards after both incidents, but for reason not made clear in the court's decision he was not arrested and charged with the thefts until sometime later. Ordinarily these crimes would be charged as misdemeanors, punishable by a fine or a term in the county jail. But California law allows petty theft to be punished as a felony
Yes, but that’s only partially true. The laws were also enacted to protect the public from judges that freed criminals with a record. That’s why judges, even some very conservative judges, have harshly criticized the three-strikes-and-you’re-out laws.[/quote]
But aren’t judges elected officials as well? Why do judges free criminals with extensive records? Why do we need laws to protect us from judges that are being elected by the people? Seems well convoluted, now that you mention it, CF.
Yes, but that’s only partially true. The laws were also enacted to protect the public from judges that freed criminals with a record. That’s why judges, even some very conservative judges, have harshly criticized the three-strikes-and-you’re-out laws.[/quote]
But aren’t judges elected officials as well? Why do judges free criminals with extensive records? Why do we need laws to protect us from judges that are being elected by the people? Seems well convoluted, now that you mention it, CF.[/quote]
Some judges are elected; some are appointed; some who are elected can only be removed from office for egregious offences. In short, there is not a whole lot the public can do about a judge who continually flouts the standards it would like to see upheld. California has removed judges (remember the famous removal of Chief Justice Rose Bird for her stance against the death penalty?), but at best it is a difficult and timely process, which is as it should be.
Why do some judges free criminals? Because they are usually liberally educated and wealthy men. Their liberal education gives them the quality of misguided mercy while their wealth ensures that the criminals they free will never plague their neighborhoods. That’s an unfortunate combination for people in live in lower and lower-middle class neighborhoods, where crime is rampant.
[quote=“Cold Front”]
Why do some judges free criminals? Because they are usually liberally educated and wealthy men. Their liberal education gives them the quality of misguided mercy while their wealth ensures that the criminals they free will never plague their neighborhoods. That’s an unfortunate combination for people in live in lower and lower-middle class neighborhoods, where crime is rampant.[/quote]
But don’t a lot of conservatives and upper-middle class judges live in the same wealthy neighborhoods as the liberal ones? So why wouldn’t conservative judges have the same viewpoint as what you’re accusing the liberal ones of having if it really won’t touch them in their ‘ivory towers’? Isn’t prison overcrowding perhaps one of the main reasons why repeat offenders are so often set free to plague crime-ridden lower class neighborhoods?
Uh, because they’re conservatives. The point about living in wealthy neighborhoods is not that it is the reason that some judges are liberal… as CF stated, liberal judges are liberal most likely due to their education. The fact that they live in upscale areas merely means that they will most likely not have to deal with the consequences of their liberal sentencing.
Why do some judges free criminals? Because they are usually liberally educated and wealthy men.[/quote]
Thanks Cold Front, but I have a few more questions for you, if you don’t mind:
What is ‘liberally educated’? Do these judges not attend the same institutions as the more conservative-minded judges? Which institutions are considered ‘liberal’? Which ones are ‘conservative’?
Is there are study I don’t know about that indicates when certain judges (or other high-ranking professionals) attend certain schools, they come out more liberal than others? Are these liberal schools on the east coast or west coast of the US? What other factors influence ‘liberal education’ or ‘conservative education’.
By all accounts and purposes, my private school education and parental influence should have made me a staunch conservative. Or do these things work in the reverse? Should I credit my university education instead, because that’s when I started to become interested in political agendas? And since my university, high school and upbringing are primarily North Carolina-based (always a strong supporter for the GOP) how come I turned out differently? Of course, luckily, I’m not a judge!
But, how could judges be that different from others when it comes to education? Or do you mean that they’re more highly educated? But that doesn’t make that much sense either. YOu meet an awful lot of conservatives who’ve got similarly high levels of education.
Oh for Pete’s sake. What point are you trying to make? Some people are liberal and some are conservative.
People are either liberal or conservative depending upon the education they have received.
We are all educated by our parents, schools, friends and associates and by what we learn on our own otherwise. Whether a school we attend is conservative or liberal is not so important as how we receive and interpret the education provided there.
I am the product of a Catholic education… partly because of the way that I received and interpreted that education, I am no longer a Catholic.
[quote=“Alien”][quote=“Cold Front”]
Why do some judges free criminals? Because they are usually liberally educated and wealthy men. Their liberal education gives them the quality of misguided mercy while their wealth ensures that the criminals they free will never plague their neighborhoods. That’s an unfortunate combination for people in live in lower and lower-middle class neighborhoods, where crime is rampant.[/quote]
But don’t a lot of conservatives and upper-middle class judges live in the same wealthy neighborhoods as the liberal ones? So why wouldn’t conservative judges have the same viewpoint as what you’re accusing the liberal ones of having if it really won’t touch them in their ‘ivory towers’? Isn’t prison overcrowding perhaps one of the main reasons why repeat offenders are so often set free to plague crime-ridden lower class neighborhoods?[/quote]
There are a variety of reasons why judges of all political persuasions are against tough sentence guidelines. The first reason I already described and I believe it is the most prevalent: liberal judges, who are insulated from the consequences of their mistakes, have a misguided sense of mercy.
Some conservative judges, on the other hand, are also against tough sentence guidelines. Why? I think there are two reasons. The first is that no judge, no matter what his politics, likes to have his power curtailed. This is a natural reaction for any person who is accustomed to exercising a large privilege or right, and suddenly finds he is greatly limited in how he employs it.
The second reason is that some conservative judges genuinely think there are relevant constitutional issues involving the independence of the judiciary.
Although the conservative dissenters are not as numerous as liberal judges who disagree with the three strikes law, they are still a significant number and among them are some notable names. William Rehnquist is one of those.
Why do some judges free criminals? Because they are usually liberally educated and wealthy men.[/quote]
Thanks Cold Front, but I have a few more questions for you, if you don’t mind:
What is ‘liberally educated’? Do these judges not attend the same institutions as the more conservative-minded judges? Which institutions are considered ‘liberal’? Which ones are ‘conservative’?
Is there are study I don’t know about that indicates when certain judges (or other high-ranking professionals) attend certain schools, they come out more liberal than others? Are these liberal schools on the east coast or west coast of the US? What other factors influence ‘liberal education’ or ‘conservative education’.
By all accounts and purposes, my private school education and parental influence should have made me a staunch conservative. Or do these things work in the reverse? Should I credit my university education instead, because that’s when I started to become interested in political agendas? And since my university, high school and upbringing are primarily North Carolina-based (always a strong supporter for the GOP) how come I turned out differently? Of course, luckily, I’m not a judge!
But, how could judges be that different from others when it comes to education? Or do you mean that they’re more highly educated? But that doesn’t make that much sense either. You meet an awful lot of conservatives who’ve got similarly high levels of education.[/quote]
I didn’t mean to suggest there are liberal schools and conservative schools. How you are raised, who you studied with, the subjects you studied, who you clerked for, as well as your natural proclivities all play a part in making up your education. Someone raised in a liberal environment who studied under Dershowitz at Harvard, clerked for Breyer, and likes to read Foucault and someone raised in a conservative environment, who studied under Bork at Yale, clerked for Scalia, and likes to read books on natural law have been educated quite differently even though their essential educational experiences are the same.
I should add that Rehnquist has spoken out only on federal sentence guidelines. Because of his conservative philosophy, he may very well have voted to support California’s law for obvious reasons. I don’t know; I haven’t looked.
