Three Strikes Law was intended to equalize as much as possible the treatment of defendants. There is no morally defensible justification for allowing different treatment of individuals with similar backgrounds simply depending on the legal culture of the county they are prosecuted in or the caseload of the D.A. or the judge who has their case.

While it raises the hackles of some participants in the justice system to suggest limitations on discretion one must consider the nature of the limitations. The drafting of laws, the prescribed punishment for violation of laws and their intended purpose and objective of laws are policy determinations made by the Governor and the Legislature in statues or by the public through proposition or initiative. District attorneys and judges enforce those policy determination. Unfortunately, the enforcement of those policy objectives is affected by caseload demands in the district attorney's office, judicial caseloads, available courtrooms and local legal culture. In my view there is a lack of consistency in the application of laws that occurs because of pressures on the courts, prosecutors and different perspectives that affect the high degree of subjective judgment used in enforcement of legislative policy. In effect, local courts become the policy makers and the consequences of their individual policy decisions become the aggregate enforcement of legislative policy. What may get six years in one county may well get six months in another on virtually identical facts or even on facts where the mitigated punishment is on more egregious facts than the aggravated punishment. Many factors affect such a result; however, while the result may be explicable or even understandable it is not necessarily justifiable.

Three Strikes was intended to minimize disparities in policy implementation by ensuring that career criminals do not receive probation, are not given minimal sentences and objective guidelines are provided to enforce those policy objectives. Three Strikes was intended to ensure that an effective habitual offender statute was implemented and enforced by requiring its enforcement to the extent practicable. To that extent it has made the sentencing of such offenders more consistent. It has not eliminated all inconsistency,

Next Page
or go to... 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20
21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39
40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48