Скачать или смотреть Ewing v. California | 5-4

The tension is palpable with the count tied at 3-2 … the defendant steps up to the plate and … OH! Swing and a miss! That's the third strike for our defendant which means the Court is going home with the win and the defendant is going to jail forever! Tax payers will also move down in the standings; they'll be footing the bill for senseless incarceration for 25 years to life. The 8th Amendment also takes a hit with this loss, moving down from "Constitutional law" to "that's just your opinion, man."

If you think this episode description is dumb, wait until you hear the rationale in the decision.

If you're not a 5-4 Premium member, you're not hearing every episode! To get exclusive Premium-only episodes, discounts on merch, access to our Slack community, and more, join at fivefourpod.com/support.

5 to 4 is presented by Prologue Projects. Rachel Ward is our producer. Leon Neyfakh and Andrew Parsons provide editorial support. Our production manager is Percia Verlin. Our website was designed by Peter Murphy. Our artwork is by Teddy Blanks at Chips NY, and our theme song is by Spatial Relations.

Follow Peter (@The_Law_Boy), Rhiannon (@AywaRhiannon) and Michael (@_FleerUltra) on Twitter. You can follow the show on Twitter and Instagram @fivefourpod.

__________
ABOUT THE CASE from https://www.oyez.org/


Facts of the case
On March 12, 2000, Gary Ewing, a serial offender with a long history of criminal convictions, was arrested for stealing three golf clubs, each worth $399, from a Los Angeles-area golf course. At the time of his arrest, Ewing was on parole from a 9-year prison term for convictions in three burglaries and one robbery. Under California's three strikes law, another felony conviction would require a sentence of 25 years to life. Ewing was charged with and convicted of one count of felony grand theft for the incident at the golf course. During sentencing, Ewing requested the judge in the case exercise discretion permitted under California law and reduce the conviction to a misdemeanor. The judge declined and sentenced Ewing in accordance with the three strikes law. On appeal, Ewing argued the sentence of 25 years to life was grossly disproportionate to the crime and therefore a violation of the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishments. The court, reasoning that the three strikes law served the state's legitimate interests, rejected this claim. The California Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Question
Did Ewing's sentence of 25 years to life, in accordance with California's three strikes law, violate the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment?

Conclusion

5–4 DECISION
PLURALITY OPINION BY SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR

No. In a 5-4 plurality decision authored by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court, relying heavily on its decision in Rummel v. Estelle (1980), concluded that Ewing's long history of legal offenses justified his conviction. In Rummel, the Court had ruled that a sentence of life with the possibility of parole was valid for three convictions of fraud, check forgery, and theft. In that case, the Court gave great deference to legislatures in mandating sentences for repeat offenders. Justice O'Connor writes that, as in Rummel, Ewing's conviction reflects "rational legislative judgment" and "is justified by the State's public-safety interest in incapacitating and deterring recidivist felons."