We are very disappointed in today's Supreme Court 5-4 ruling upholding California's three-strikes laws under which felons convicted of a minor crime, such as stealing a few videos or food, can be sentenced to life in prison. The majority of the court said this does not violate the 8th Amendment ban against cruel and unusual punishment.

"The California law requires a sentence of 25 years to life in prison for any felony conviction if the criminal was previously convicted of two serious or violent felonies. It also permits judges to treat as felonies a third offense that would otherwise be a misdemeanor."

The dissenters were Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The cases are Lockyer v. Andrade, 01-1127, and Ewing v. California, 01-6978.

Leonardo Andrade, who received 50 years in jail as a punishment for stealing $153.00 of videos for his children to watch. Andrade has already served seven years for his shoplifting episode and will be 87 before he is due for release. Here's more on his case and the unfairness of the three-strikes laws.

Since the court has ruled these draconian laws are constitutional, it is up to the state legislature to change them. Efforts are underway. Visit Families to Amend California's Three-Strikes for more, including this latest development.

"After a lengthy and passionate debate, the Assembly Committee on Public Safety passed AB 112 (Goldberg) by a vote of 4-3. AB 112 would require that all strikes be serious or violent in order to subject a defendant to three strikes enhancement. The bill also sets up a process of re-sentencing for those who are currently serving a life sentence for a non-serious and non-violent felony. Channels 3, 10, and 13 covered the hearings. The bill will go next to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, no hearing date been set in Appropriations."

Some of our prior coverage and objections to three-strike laws are here and here.