I'm fucking speechless...
[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0%2C12271%2C908375%2C00.html[/url]
"50 years' jail for video thefts upheld
Duncan Campbell in Los Angeles
Thursday March 6, 2003
The Guardian
The United States supreme court has ruled that a 50-year sentence being served by a man who shoplifted videos as gifts for his children is not a "cruel and unusual" punishment.
The ruling was described as "barbarous" by campaigners against California's "three strikes law", which imposes mandatory penalties for third-time offenders.
By a majority of five to four, the supreme court decided that Leandro Andrade should continue to serve the 50 years imposed in 1995 for shoplifting videos worth £95 on two separate occasions.
Because he had committed past similar shoplifting offences, he was jailed in 1995 under the state's three-strikes law, which mandates a minimum 25-year sentence for each new offence, making a total of 50 years.
Andrade, who had a drug habit, had no record of violence and had stolen videos including Cinderella and Free Willy for his children.
"This is simply barbarous," said Geri Silva, executive director of Families to Amend California's Three Strikes (Facts), an LA-based organisation campaigning to exclude non-violent offenders from the effects of the law. "It shows the absolute inhumanity of the highest court of the land. If that is not a cruel and unusual punishment, I don't know what is."
The ruling came in response to a decision last year by the regional circuit appeal court in San Francisco that the 50-year sentence for Andrade and a 25-year term for Gary Ewing, who stole three golf clubs, were cruel and unusual punishments and therefore unconstitutional. California's attorney general, Bill Lockyer, appealed against the decision which brought it to the supreme court last year.
The court's decision upholding the three-strikes law was announced yesterday.
The California governor, Gray Davis, welcomed the decision. "This is good for California," said Mr Davis, one of whose main political donors is the group that represents California's prison officers. He said that the law helped to keep down crime rates.
Professor Erwin Chemerinsky, who represented Andrade, expressed surprise at the decision. He said that had Andrade committed rape, not shoplifting, he would have been given eight years rather than 50 because it would have been his first such offence.
The next likely development will be an attempt to amend the law during elections in 2004. Pressure groups, including Facts, are now collecting signatures to put a proposition to the electorate that would limit the three-strike law to violent offenders. At present, half of those serving three strikes sentences are jailed for non-violent offences.
"Opinion polls show that people do not want the law to be used for non-violent offenders," said Ms Silva of Facts yesterday, adding that she was hopeful of collecting enough signatures to put the issue on the 2004 ballot.
Three strikes was introduced after the abduction and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas in 1993 by a repeat offender out on parole. The girl's grandfather, Joe Klaas, has joined the Facts campaign saying the law should not be used against minor, non-violent offences. "
I'm not sure, but I posted this elsewhere, and the response I got was dumbfounding. Everyone thinks it's reasonable. Wow. I can't believe this shit...
I added this, "I'm f-cking speechless. That is insane." to it there and these are some of the gems people responded with:
SDSJap
Member Mar 6th 11:49 PM
why because we think stealing is stealing?
----------
xXx
Member Mar 6th 11:49 PM
He got less time than he should have.
The man is not just a one time offender. He breaks and ignores the law at will. A menace. We need to start locking more people up who are of the same mold.
----------
Pitbull
Member Mar 6th 11:49 PM
That guy got what he deserved, the little thief.
----------
x newbie
Member Mar 6th 11:54 PM
SOunds pretty fair to me dude
50 FUCKING YEARS FOR STEALING VIDEO TAPES FOR KIDS!!!! What the hell is wrong with those people? I mean, sure, he should've learned his lesson by now and obviously the guy needs a bit more than a slap on the wrist to set him straight, but I don't think he should spend what may be the rest of his life in the slammer for this petty theft. Wow.
Exactly.
Makes me ashamed to live in the same country as the people responsible for this, the people that advocate it and the fact that the Supreme Court actually upheld it.
This is disgusting.
I can't say I blame the Supreme Court for upholding the law. They're only doing their jobs. It's the damn people who passed it in the first place, written the way it was. They should have thought about it a little bit more carefully and realized that stupid situations like this could happen. Assuming the stats somebody used in your first post are correct, these kind of predicaments will all be a thing of the past come next year.
Well, I'm not sure exactly how things work, but I'd think the Supreme Court would be able to do -something- about it. I suppose not, though... Ugh.
This just supports my theory that all Californians are insane. It scares me even more that the rest of the US seems to look to California as a legislative role model for their "progressive" laws.
Can't say I'm surprised by pro-jail the responses, though. I went to high school in an area where stealing a car and selling it wouldn't get someone more than community service and less in fines than the car was worth. People are sick of laws being unenforced, which is why we end up with super-strict knee-jerk laws like the three-strikes crap. Kinda reminds me of the "zero-tolerance" bullshit that's been going around American schools. Girls weren't allowed to have aspirin or Midol at my junior high because it's considered a drug, right up there with heroin or crack. Glad to know I'm being kept safe from Bayer.
Wow, this is more of a rant that I expected to write.
"Isn't having a smoking section in a restaurant the same as having a peeing section in a swimming pool?" -- George Carlin
I don't care if he was stealing the videos to sell on the street and kicking children was part of his marketing campaign. 50 years is too much. He potentially could've gotten less time murdering someone. Messed up values in this world.
bite me
i don't think people should steel. 50 years is way way too much. i hope there's more to it, like they've been trying to nab that guy for something and they kind of caponed his ass. anyway, i'm the bastard that thinks if you rape, you should get cut off, if you steal, fuck it, cut a finger off or a hand. people don't seem to be very worried about doing things the wrong way. i admit to feeling odd about not agreeing fully with the death penalty but thinking capital punishment could help somewhat in keeping track of what's right and wrong.
it's more intimidating. 50 years for stealing something... there's gotta be something behind it. i hope.
50 years? WTF is he supposed to do when he's out, that is, if he's still alive then?
i say fuck him do you know why they have the 3 strikes law?
BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN'T CONTROL THEMSELVES!
if it was his 3rd strike he knew better
Shoot the bastard in the balls.
Look at all the mayhem he's caused.
What if the guys a kleptomaniac? That means he should be sent to a shrink, not jail. And what happens to his kids?
[SIZE=5][COLOR=Red][FONT=Book Antiqua]Hey Nature Boy, You're Looking At Me With Some Unrighteous Intention[/FONT][/COLOR][/SIZE]
I agree with Bane. This wasn't 50 years for one additional offense. It was 25 years for the third, and 25 for the fourth. This bonehead has FOUR strikes. He knew the law. I just hate that taxes are going to pay for his incarceration for he next 50 years... If the third strike was a death sentence, I bet he never would have continued stealing...
~Suggestions are like the ripcords on parachutes.
if the guy's a clepto or kleptomaniac or whatever, fuck him still. hahaha. people with excuses like that get even softer slaps on the wrists that those suck ass bastards that break into cars leaving me with a broken window and a mag light missing. um... anyway... if someones gonna steal and have a stupid excuse then maybe i'll start bitch slapping people and consider myself a pimp.
ok, that was stupid, my bad. i wish all the bad people were dead. 
why is it that in the States, each State maintains State laws that can differ to one another. forgive me, im hemispherically challenged--.... Q. could this have happened in a state other than California?
also, re: 'progressive laws'
it seems a total lie. and kind of made me giggle as i instantly thought of that conversation in Taxi Driver, where a taxi guy is talking to Peter Boyle ( Wizard ) how about in even in the 70s in California, if a gay couple broke up, one had to pay the other alimony. with Wizard responding ' yeah, theyre more advanced over there than we are here'. so, it appears that CF is taking un-healthy backward leaps.
its rather sad.
life's pretty straight without vidalia :You_Rock_
Seeing as how the US was originally several independent states (if only for a few years) there's kind of a tradition of different regions setting their own rules. Our contry was also based on a I think it's great, since different areas can decide what rules govern them. Someone who was born and raised in North Dakota is probably going to have very different needs and expectations from the government than someone who grew up in downtown Los Angeles.
Also, it's like having fifty legislative experiments at the same time. Everybody can try solving problems their own way, and if one idea actually works then everyone else can copy it. Example: Wisconsin's welfare-to-work program was a huge success a decade ago and has since been copied by a lot of pther states. Example 2: Maybe the medical marijuana laws in California (and maybe soon in New Mexico) will work out well enough to get it off the evil drug list and legalized nationwide.
"Isn't having a smoking section in a restaurant the same as having a peeing section in a swimming pool?" -- George Carlin
In the second sentence above, scratch out "Our contry was also based on a". I can't proofread. :-P
"Isn't having a smoking section in a restaurant the same as having a peeing section in a swimming pool?" -- George Carlin
This law for the most part sucks but once the DA lets one case be judged different then the rest then every 3 strikes case will be appealed. I seriously doubt any 3 strikes cases will be overturned.
Littering and... littering and...littering and... littering and... Smoking the reefer
Well they ought to just make it not apply to non-violent offenders.
Execute the fucker!!!
Shop smart. Shop S-Mart.
[url=http://www.angelfire.com/az2/eraserheadpress/mellick.html][img]http://www.angelfire.com/az2/eraserheadpress/carlbanner.gif[/img][/url]
wow. un-fucking-believable. hopefully they'll be able to amend this law on the next ballot. Welcome to HelL.A. Does he have any possibility of parole? I'm not clear on all parts of that law.