Violates Double Jeopardy
California's 3-Strike law allows nonviolent and non-serious felonies to be counted as
the third strike (in fact, the second strike is often nonviolent or non-serious too
because of the way California law bumps an offense to a higher level if someone has a
"prior"). This means that people who were convicted of strikes long ago are now
being imprisoned in a maximum security prison for 25 years to life for such minor offenses
as petty theft and possession of narcotics.
Having been convicted of prior strikes, many people believe they already did
"their time" and "paid their debt to society." To get 25 years-to-life
for a small petty theft, however, can only be considered a re-punishment for the prior
crimes. A different Supreme Court at a different time would probably not be questioned if
it struck down the 3-Strikes law based on "double jeopardy."
Sure, the 3-Strikers broke a new law, but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. What
if "jay-walking" or "rolling through a stop-sign" constituted an
offense severe enough to trigger a third strike? Would the Supreme Court allow 25 years to
life for such offenses? How much different is "jay-walking" from
"possession of narcotics" for a drug-addict (especially when the police and
probation officers are constantly targeting and intensely watching past addicts)? Perhaps
"double jeopardy" is not being violated in "form," but it is
definitely being violated in "substance."
The following are some statistics and comments from books and articles on how the
3-Strikes law violates "double jeopardy." PLEASE SEND US NEW DATA AND ARTICLES
IF YOU HAVE THEM.
Please send questions or comments to factsla@sbcglobal.net.
Everything on this web site can be distributed to the general public, reprinted, or
reposted without permission of Families to Amend California's 3-Strikes.
Date last modified: 7/14/97.