The New York Times gets it right today in Fairness Strikes Out

That the punishment must fit the crime is an elemental rule of justice and a core principle of the Constitution. With its decision this week, the court turned its back on this principle, and on two men whose sentences are a clear miscarriage of justice.

Here is an article by criminal defense attorney and appellate lawyer Jeffrey Friedman of California with information regarding the inequities and vagaries of the law and the inconsistent and illogical results it can produce. (Scrioll down to page 2 of the pdf. document.) Mr. Friedman also tells us via e-mail that with respect to Mr. Andrade's "9 prior violent felonies,"

"residential burglary is a qualifying "strike. You can pick up more than one "strike" on one occasion. And there is no "wash out" period on strikes. So, if a teenager burgled two of his neighbors' garages and stole bicycles and then gets busted for shoplifting at age 50, he could get 25 to life. More examples like that abound."

Mr. Friedman, who practices in Santa Ana, ends his e-mail with this thought: "Obviously, we all know too well the bottom line - until all Reagan and Bush judges have retired (except their "mistake" - Souter), we're going to see more and more abominations like this one. And the problem is you and I will have retired (hopefully) before the last of them are gone."

As we have said repeatedly, the battle over judicial nominations is one with repurcussions well into our childrens' adulthoods. If you care about freedom, justice and fairness for all, we urge you to get involved in opposing Bush's ultra-conservative judicial picks--and in efforts to vote him and the Conservatives out of office in 2004.

[comments now closed]