On 9 Feb 2002, at 10:45, Steve Schear wrote: > At 09:31 AM 2/9/2002 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: > >On Sat, 9 Feb 2002, proffr11 wrote: > > > > > SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - In a serious blow to California's three-strikes > > law, a > > > federal appeals court has ruled that life in prison for shoplifting is > > > cruel and unusual punishment. > > > >All 3-strike type laws are unconstitutional and need to be removed. > > Except for one's which still need passage: removing office holders who > demonstrate their violation of their sworn oath to preserve, protect and > defend the Constitution (e.g., by legislators affirming three laws in which > any part is later ruled unconstitutional). > > steve > > Why give them three strikes? Why not remove them the first time?
Of course, whether they're removed after the first, third, or hundredth strike, you still have the problem that whether or not a law is ruled unconstitutional by the courts has only a weak correlation with whether or not the law is in fact Constitutional. Going back to the earlier case, I suspect it'll be overturned by the supremes. Lawyer types correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the SC has consistently held that the ban on cruel and unusual punishment only bans certain punishments for any offenses (torture, maiming, branding), it doesn't ban excessive punishment for any particular crime, except where money is involved. Certainly that view is consistent with the text: Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. George
