Three Strikes and You're IN

Tomorrow's New York Times will report that the Supreme Court, in a pair of 5-4 rulings, has endorsed California's stringent "three strikes" sentencing policies. David Stout reports: "In two 5-to-4 rulings, the court held that state legislatures can prescribe long terms for repeat offenders, even if the latest brush with the law is not a particularly serious one ? the theft of $1,200 worth of golf clubs in one case and $153.54 worth of videotapes in the other." As a practical matter, these sentencing policies mean we'll be paying to house and feed some non-violent offenders for the duration of their life sentences. Because the Supremes have ruled that a 25-year conviction for the theft of three golf clubs (plus a history of recidivism) is not "cruel and unusual," the states are now left to weigh the cost of treatment for drug addiction against the cost of housing "third strikes" for decades. My sense is that the states will soon discover they can't afford their "three strikes" policies. It will be interesting to see whether this is addressed legislatively (i.e. with the laws being re-written/stricken from the books) or procedurally (under existing California law, I can envision prosecutors being advised NOT to bring charges against two-strike defendants whose crimes are non-violent and minor).