The three strikes law is tough to argue against, but judges in California are making it a heck of a lot easier.

The crimes that are being counted as strikes are getting pettier and pettier, so much so that the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing some recent cases where criminals have been given 25 or 50 years to life sentences for petty theft.

They are wondering if recent judicial decisions made in California under the law violate the Eighth Amendment, which specifically bans cruel or unusual punishment.

Recently, as reported in The Sacramento Bee, Leandro Andrade was given a 50 year to life sentence for the shoplifting of nine videotapes, because of previous offenses that he had.

Obviously it is easy to say, “He was warned,” and most certainly he was. Andrade, who already had two strikes against him, had no reason not to know that any more criminal behavior would result in severe punishment. This is where it gets hard to defend people like Andrade and the droves of others who have been dealt a similar fate. Because, obviously, the people who put themselves in these situations are not very bright and have made some very poor choices. And surely some of them do deserve to be sentenced to 25 to life, but not all of them do.

Ignoring the obvious, that the court has already punished them for their two previous strikes, there are still bigger problems with the three strike laws.

The trouble centers around the all to familiar slippery slope that seems to rear its ugly head in almost every controversy: Where does one draw the line? What if Andrade had taken just eight videotapes? Well, if that would make no difference, then what about two or three? Where is the line drawn?

It appears that one?s fate depends on the judge, which is not fair, but it is the way the court system works. However, the way that individual cases are looped together, where somebody with extremely violent crimes on his record can be compared to someone else with non-violent crimes, can be changed. Throw out those pesky guidelines, because each case should be looked at on an individual basis.

The individual aspect should override all else, and the guidelines, although in place, should always lose out to the actual characteristics of each case. A person?s record cannot be overanalyzed, since there is no amount of thought that is too much when the question of life in prison is at stake.

Everybody?s situation is different. The judges who are dealing out three-strike sentences don?t seem to understand this, however. They are seemingly so in the dark about individual circumstances, that if they were professors at Sacramento State, they would be harassing Sarah Dutra over un-excused absences. Only when California judges start looking at these cases within their own context will we stop seeing life sentences dealt out for petty theft, which has caused controversy since the law was enacted in 1994.

Wake up, California. Although we are dealing with criminals, and not very bright ones at that, it is no reason to violate their Eighth Amendment rights. Treat each case on the basis of its own facts, and don?t take away somebody?s life because of a few words on a piece of paper.

Stand behind the three strikes laws? Give Russ Edmondson reasons why at [email protected].

Send comments, questions, or concerns to [email protected].

For questions orinformation regarding the site, please contact [email protected]