Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Three Strikes in the Supreme Court â Ewing v. California and Lockyer v. Andrade (CRS Report for Congress)
| Release Date |
March 24, 2003 |
| Report Number |
RS21346 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Charles Doyle, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
The Eighth Amendment's cruel and unusual punishments clause forbids grossly disproportionate
sentences. The question of how to determine whether a particular term of imprisonment is grossly
disproportionate under the facts of a particular case has divided the Court for years. The division
was evident in the Court's recent treatment of the issue in two cases arising under the California
Three Strikes law, Lockyer v. Andrade , 123 S.Ct. 1166 (2003), and Ewing v.
California , 123 S.Ct.
1179 (2003). In Andrade , the Court conceded that its precedents were unclear. As a
consequent,
federal courts could not conduct habeas corpus review of a state court decision which had upheld
application of the three strikes law against an Eighth Amendment challenge. In Ewing ,
the state
prevailed when three justices found no disproportionality in the application of the California scheme
and were joined by two Justices who found proportionality unworkable as a basis upon which to
invalidate punishment in the form of imprisonment for crime.
Related CRS Reports include CRS Report RS21347(pdf) , Federal Mandatory Minimum
Sentencing
Statutes: An Overview of Legislation in the 107th Congress ; and CRS Report RL30281(pdf) ,
Federal
Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Statutes: A List of Citation with Captions, Introductory Comments
and Bibliography .
