Completely unrelated, but when I see clear injustice, I can't keep my mouth shut. It seems that at long last we have found the solution to homelessness, hunger, lack of education, and the crimes that go with it. I question the wisdom of the method of the punishment here, though. After all, the man never paid any taxes to the state. Is it fair to have him free-loading on our good will for such a long time? Would it not be cheaper to just shoot him, or at least send him off to a deserted pacific island? BTW, the supreme court never fails to amaze me with its talent to avoid as long as possible to take sides on any controversial matter, especially when in involves the law makers. I used to think these guys were great gymnasts and conturtionists. Now I see that I was mistaken; they simply lack spines.
Sun Tzu
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A repeat offender sentenced to at least 25 years in prison for stealing a bottle of vitamins lost a U.S. Supreme Court appeal on Tuesday, arguing his punishment was way out of line with his crime.
The high court rejected an appeal by Michael Riggs, who was given a minimum sentence of 25 years to life in prison under California's so-called three-strikes law, which mandates more severe punishment for criminals with two prior convictions.
He argued in his appeal that his sentence was so grossly disproportionate to his crime that it violated the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Riggs stole a bottle of vitamins from a supermarket in 1995. A California appeals court described the offense as ''a petty theft motivated by homelessness and hunger.''
If it had been his first offense, it would have been a misdemeanor punishable by no more than six months in jail. But under the three-strikes law, the crime was treated as a felony.
Justice Stephen Breyer was the only Supreme Court member voting to hear the appeal. He said the case raised a serious question of whether the three-strikes law may be applied to a petty offense.
Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, issued a statement saying the case raised serious questions, but that there were valid reasons for the Supreme Court not to hear the appeal.
Stevens said Riggs, whose appeal had been brought in state court, now could bring his claim in federal court under a so-called habeas case arguing that his constitutional rights had been violated.
Stevens said it would be ''prudent'' for the Supreme Court to await rulings by other courts before addressing the issue.
He noted that Riggs had more than two prior ''strikes'' as he had been convicted for eight other felony crimes, including car theft, drug possession, forgery, robbery, attempted burglary and receiving stolen property.
Stevens emphasized that the Supreme Court's rejection of the appeal does not constitute a ruling on the merits of the case. |
