This is where the facts do tend to bear out the intent of e three-strikes law: namely that it convicts those who commit violent or serious felonies, while petty theft and marijuana possession are misdemeanors.
In addition, Westerman writes "in 1996, the California Supreme Court held that trial judges have the discretion to ignore any prior conviction they determined would unjustly qualify the criminal for the 25-too-life sentence." (Westerman 2) The problem is not the judges' discretion, but the prosecutors' zeal in putting people in jail. And, whether we like to admit it or not, those who are prosecuted and convicted the most are the minorities.
Of course, it makes no difference what sort of felony was committed, or even where, according to the three-strikes law. In other words, someone convicted of a felony (which may differ in other countries) anywhere in the world, which comes to California is subject to the three-strikes law.
What is worse is the problem (as mentioned earlier) about juveniles falling under the same three-strikes law, among the juvenile offenses which could be punishable by 25-to-life sentences are the obvious ones, some may be considered borderline: "murder, kidnapping, rape, assault, even discharge if a firearm into an inhabited or occupied building, carjacking, escape from a juvenile detention center, even selling as little as one-half ounce of a controlled substance." (Cal. Crim. Law 1) Juvenile records, which, by law, remain sealed, may now be opened for this law to take effect, a clear violation of the juvenile regulations.
A reputable attorney stated: "Once again, California is leading the way with social experiments taken to an extreme. Although many states have enacted versions of the tough-on- crime idea, 'three strikes and you're out' (which itself is a modification of older 'habitual offender' statues) California's stands out as the most severe use because of its broad range of crimes meeting the definition of strike- ( Reed 1).
