California wants to incarcerate someone 25 years-to-life for stealing three golf clubs? Sounds ludicrous, yeah, but the logic is sound.
Last Thursday, the Supreme Court affirmed the constitutionality of California’s three-strikes law, a law that mandates third-felony offenders receive a sentence of 25-to-life. By a 5-4 margin, the Court stated it is not cruel and unusual punishment, as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. In the New York Times summary of the opinion, the Court cited the intent of the law. It was designed “to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have previously been convicted of serious and/or violent felony offenses.”
The case was brought to the Court by a man who received his third strike for stealing three golf clubs. As I said, putting a man away for 25-to-life because he stole three clubs sounds irrational, but dig a bit and you’ll find that this gentleman was no angel. He was convicted of a plethora of offenses including, but not limited to, robbery, grand-theft auto and illegal possession of a firearm. Yet some people still are crying foul.
A gaggle of groups publish all kinds of misleading statistics on their Web sites. According to Families to Amend California’s Three-strikes (FACTS), the number of folks to receive 25-to-life for petty-theft, receiving stolen property, drug possession or weapons possession from the implementation of the law in 1994 through June 30, 2002 is 1,529. What they don’t tell you is how many of those convicts’ first and second strikes were rape, assault with a deadly weapon, child molestation or the like. These groups make my head hurt.
What also makes my head hurt is people who will fight tooth and nail for the “rights” of criminals, but remain silent when victims’ rights are trampled. Victims are called such because they didn’t do anything to deserve whatever act was perpetrated on them, but don’t try to tell FACTS that because they don’t want to hear it. They think someone who couldn’t get it right the first or second time should be given endless opportunities to antagonize an otherwise peaceful society. The bottom line is the California judicial system is doing the best it can to perform the task with which it has been charged: to protect and maintain public safety.
Now is the public’s opportunity to relinquish itself of this pop-culture logic: “but the poor chap had a horrible upbringing, his mom did this, his dad did that, etc…” I have utmost sympathy for those who are less fortunate; they should seek help if they need it, but let’s get real for a second. Despite any of our upbringing or circumstances, there comes a time in all of our lives when we are able to readily discern the difference between right and wrong. It is each of our individual responsibilities to act with regard to that knowledge. One doesn’t accidentally commit the offenses that will land them in jail for life. These offenses are felonies because they are intentional and deplorable.
Underlying this discourse is the suggestion that people should not be held accountable for their actions. Maybe it was just a stolen golf club or a video tape, but those who receive a third strike know the law. They knew at the time of the offense that they were doing something illegal and they did it anyway. These are the types of people who should be removed from society, indefinitely.
These criminals are adults and with that label comes responsibilities; to family, to government and to society. If the person in question is mentally disabled then he or she should be identified and treated as such. Otherwise, criminals who just don’t get it should be permanently removed from the general population.
Unfortunately, some among us will never have enough self-control not to commit crimes. I genuinely feel for those people, but our government must protect its citizens. It is under this pretext that the three-strikes law should stand firm and criminals ought to be proactive in seeing to it that they don’t become recidivists. Because the fact remains, if they don’t regulate themselves, the government will regulate for them … and they might never know liberty again.