IndexIntroductionHistory 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 Strikes Laws in the Future Conclusion Introduction “Three strikes and you're out” is a famous baseball quote that we all heard growing up. It became a popular rallying cry for the rise in violent crime and drug-related crime in the 1980s and 1990s. Politicians running for office have made fighting crime their platform. Many states and the federal government have enacted harsh sentencing laws without carefully examining all the effects these laws would have on the criminal justice system. As a result, there have been many constitutional challenges in the courts. Most have failed. These laws will continue to apply in the future without any changes. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayHistory of Three Strikes LawsThe 1980s and 1990s brought habitual offender laws into the spotlight, but the first appearance of these types of laws can be found as far back as 1796 (FindLaw, 2010), New York had a recidivism law in 1796 for enhanced sentences for repeat offenders. They were the first in the country. In 1907, New York added mandatory life sentences for fourth-time offenders (FindLaw, 2010). But he later changed the sentence from fifteen years to life in 1932. In 1965, New York revised its criminal law for nonviolent offenders giving judges more flexibility in choosing a sentence that is not excessively harsh. In 1988, Ida Ballasiotes' daughter, Diane, was murdered by a paroled sex offender who roamed the streets of Seattle (Seattle Times Company, 1993). When he learned how Washington monitored and convicted criminals. He decided that repeat offenders needed harsher sentences, so he fought to get Washington Initiative 593 (Seattle Times Company, 1993). The “Three Strikes and You're Out” initiative read on the ballot paper “Will criminals convicted of 'most serious crimes' on three occasions be sentenced to life in prison without parole?” (Seattle Times Company, 1993, para. 1). Initiative 593 was approved with 75% of the votes. Over 40 crimes have been included for the third conviction, and the governor's clemency is the only reprieve. California soon followed Washington with Proposition 184. In 1992, Kimber Reynolds was robbed by two men on a motorcycle. She was hit in the head and later died from her injuries. His father fought to get a habitual offender law on the books and it was signed by the governor in March 1994. The law was the same as this measure. According to the UC Hastings Scholarship Repository (1994), the measure would increase sentences for defendants who have prior convictions for violent or serious crimes such as rape, robbery, or burglary (UC Hastings Scholarship Repository, 1994, p. 32). With the second conviction the sentence is double the normal sentence. If the offender has two or more prior convictions, the sentence is a minimum of three times the normal sentence or 25 years, whichever is longer. The measure would also include prior convictions for juveniles age 16 and older 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. In 1984, the federal government enacted the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) (Harvard LawReview, 2015). The ACCA required a 15-year sentence increase for an offender who has committed a felony with a firearm and has three or more prior federal or state convictions for serious drug offenses or violent crimes (Harvard Law Review, 2015) . the government enacted the three strikes statue (Harris, 1995). If an offender is convicted of a serious, violent federal crime and has two or more prior convictions, one must be a serious, violent crime, the other may be a serious drug crime, require the offender to receive a full sentence. mandatory life sentence. Tommy Lee Farmer was the first person convicted under federal law. He had participated in a botched supermarket robbery and thought he would face state charges. When he arrived at the courthouse 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). The United States Attorney, Mr. Rapp, was able to obtain a grand jury indictment charging Farmer with “interfering with interstate commerce by robbery, alleging that Hy-Vee Supermarket was part of a multistate chain store.” (Butterfield, 1995, para. 28) The farmer's criminal history includes domestic abuse, murder, armed robbery and conspiracy to commit murder, spanning 25 years (Butterfield, 1995). in state court, he would have been given an 8-year sentence. Instead, he was sentenced to life in prison. 1994, Timothy L. Tyler was the first person convicted of the federal government's mandatory minimum sentence. criminal gives you life in prison (Fuchs, 2013). His first two charges were nonviolent drug-related charges and he received no prison time, the third charge triggered the federal three strikes 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 has had several psychotic episodes in recent years and after one he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital. Tyler had delusions and acted wildly. He used acid, sold acid and LSD to his family and friends. Effects of Three Strikes Laws The effects of three strikes laws can be seen in the increase in prison populations as crime rates have decreased over the years since the laws were implemented. We see the effects in clogged justice systems, rising costs to the state and federal government, increased violence in prisons, and how these sentences disproportionately affect minorities. Politicians argued that mandatory sentences would deter violent crime and protect society from repeat offenders. California's qualifying crimes included nonviolent crimes, and there were 87,500 second- and third-strike convictions in 2005. Court systems already had a backlog. With the introduction of habitual offenders facing mandatory life imprisonment, offenders will want a cost-increasing and time-consuming process. Other crimes are resolved with plea bargaining. Plea deals take less time and cost less money (Jones, JA, 2012). The increased costs do not only come from the justice system, but also include the prison system. It was necessary to build new prisons and hire more staff. Health care costs increase as inmates age. With prisons densely populated, tensions rise and create more problems. The common areas are transformed into dormitories, the single cells house two or three inmates, privacy becomes a problem. Money for programs decreases withthe increase in population. Inmates may not receive job training or drug treatment, which may make them more likely to commit new crimes ACLU (2019). Violence against police officers could increase because when an offender faces the third strike and mandatory life sentence, they have nothing to lose, which could lead to resisting arrest, killing witnesses or attempts to leak. 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 by whites and blacks is comparable. The police are more concentrated in the minority neighborhoods of the city center where the drug dealing takes place on the streets. In the suburbs, drug dealing occurs in homes or out of sight. Constitutional Challenges to Three Strikes Laws Over the years the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has agreed to hear three strikes (habitual criminal) cases. They challenged single state and federal laws. The court has accepted many 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 the fact that California's three-strikes law violates the protection from cruel and unusual punishment guaranteed in the Eighth Amendment. Ewing v. California, 538 US 11 (2003) Gary Ewing had a long criminal history with felony charges of auto theft, burglary, unlawful possession of firearms and many others. On March 12, 2000, while on probation, Ewing stole 3 golf clubs valued at $399.00 (FindLaw, 2003). He was convicted of one count of grand larceny and under California law is sentenced to 25 years to life due to his prior felony convictions (FindLaw, 2003). Ewing appealed his sentence questioning whether his sentence was grossly disproportionate to the crime committed. convicted and thus violated the cruel and unusual protections of the Eighth Amendment. SCOTUS has held that California's three strikes law does not violate Eighth Amendment protections (FindLaw, 2003). The court based its decision on Rummel v. Estelle (1980) and stated that "the Eighth Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence [but] only prohibits extreme sentences that are 'grossly disproportionate' to the crime." Lockyer v. Andrade , 538 US 63 (2003) Leandro Andrade stole videotapes from two different Kmart stores with an approximate value of $150.00' (FindLaw, 2003). He was caught, charged and convicted of two counts of petty theft. For prior crimes, he was sentenced to two consecutive years of 25 years to life in prison under California's three strikes law (FindLaw, 2003). He appealed to the California Court of Appeals arguing that his sentence violated the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment. He subsequently appealed to the California Supreme Court, but it denied discretionary review” (FindLaw, 2003, para. 1). Andrade's next step was Federal District Court; however, “they denied his petition for habeas corpus but the Ninth Circuit granted him a certificate of appeal on his claim that his sentence violated the cruel and unusual protections of the Eighth Amendment and reversed” (FindLaw, 2003 par . 1). The State of California appealed to SCOTUS asking whether the Ninth Circuit erred in itsjudgment. SCOTUS decided yes and overturned the previous ruling. “The two consecutive twenty-five-year life sentences for a third-strike 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) The case of Portalatin v. Graham (2010) was decided alongside Phillips v. Artus and Morris v. Artus. All three offenders were sentenced separately, but all were sentenced under New York's Persistent Felony Offender (PFO) Statute (FindLaw, 2010). The appeals were combined because they addressed the same legal issue: “New York's recidivism sentencing scheme conflicts with the Supreme Court's ruling in Blakely v. Washington, 542 US 296 (2004)” (FindLaw, 2010, par. 36). The court found not and "held that the state courts did not engage in unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent in affirming convictions." Johnson v. United States (2015) In Johnson v. United States (2015), Samuel James Johnson was a convicted felon with a long criminal history. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) began investigating him in 2010 due to his involvement with a notorious white supremacist group called the National Socialist Movement (Harvard Law Review, 2015). The FBI suspected the group was planning attacks it 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 .45 caliber semi-automatic pistol” (Harvard Law Review, 2015 , par. 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 being an armed career felon in possession of a firearm and a felon in possession of ammunition. Johnson pleaded guilty to a firearms possession charge (Harvard Law Review, 2015). Johnson had two prior convictions for simple robbery and one conviction for possession of a short-barreled shotgun. These convictions were classified as violent crimes and therefore, under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), he was considered an armed career criminal and was sentenced to 180 months in prison with five years of supervised release (Harvard Law Review , 2015). Johnson appealed with the following two arguments: “that the predicate crimes of his attempted robbery and firearms possession were not violent crimes warranting an ACCA sentence 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. Lillard 685 F.3d 773 (8th Cir. 2012), that possession of a short-barreled rifle is a violent crime and in United States v. Sawyer 588 F.3d 548 (8th Cir. 2009), simple robbery is also a violent crime (Harvard Law Review, 2015, para. 4). The court further held that “the ACCA's residuary clause was not void for vagueness; bound by precedent affirming the constitutionality of the ACCA. The court found that the ACCA was not unconstitutionally vague” (Harvard Law Review, 2015, para. 4). The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). The question at hand was whether the ACCA definition of violent crime was unconstitutionally vague? SCOTUS held, yes, the residual clause of the ACCA definition of violent crime is unconstitutionally vague and violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment because it is void for vagueness. The doctrine of vagueness has long guaranteed a.