The LA Times has an in-depth article today outlining the tough-on-crime cases that will be at the forefront of the Supreme Court's fall session.

"The Supreme Court, which opens its new term next week, will take up constitutional challenges this fall to two popular tough-on-crime measures of the 1990s: Megan's Laws, which alert the public to sex offenders who were released from prison, and three-strikes laws, which can keep three-time felony offenders in prison for life."

"Judges in California, Connecticut and Alaska have ruled that these laws sometimes go too far. They say Megan's Laws brand as dangerous all former offenders, even if their crimes were long in the past. And in California, shoplifting can be the third strike that sends a two-time offender to prison for life."

There are two sex offender registration cases, one from Alaska and one from Connecticut and two California cases challenging the state's "three-strikes" law.

"In the Connecticut case, the court will decide whether ex-offenders are entitled to a hearing to determine whether they are still dangerous. In the Alaska case, the court will decide whether Megan's Law can be applied to ex-offenders whose crimes occurred before the law was enacted."

The California cases include those of Leandro Andrade, a 37-year-old heroin addict who was sentenced to 50 years in prison for a third strike of shoplifting videotapes from K-Mart, and Gary Ewing who was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life for stealing three golf clubs.

Here are ten reasons to oppose three strikes laws.

Here and here are some reasons to oppose mandatory, life-long sex offender registration laws and in particular, those that broadcast names on the internet.