Their description of California’s three strikes law appears to be inaccurate. But, hey, so was Slate’s and Slate isn’t presenting themselves as a comedy site.
But the bigger problem is the claim that “after strike one, strikes two and three can come from any felony” — especially when followed by the claim that “[a] third strike carries with it a mandatory sentence of at least 25 years in prison.” This phrasing suggests that one serious or violent felony, followed by two nonserious and nonviolent felonies, can subject a defendant to a “mandatory” 25+ year sentence. Not so.
In order to be subject to a 25-to-life sentence under the Three Strikes Law, a defendant must have at least two previous felonies that qualify as serious or violent: murder, rape, robbery, arson, kidnapping, residential burglary, assault with a deadly weapon, and the like. Then one must commit a third felony.
What’s more, even then, a 25-to-life sentence is not “mandatory.” A judge always has discretion to dismiss one or more strike priors in the interests of justice, if he reasonably concludes that the defendant falls outside the spirit of the Three Strikes Law. In Los Angeles, if the third felony is not serious or violent, judges will generally dismiss one or more strike priors. [UPDATE: Prosecutors can do this too. It’s such second nature to me, I forgot to mention it.]
April 9th, 2009 at 10:51 am
The follow up article is even better:
http://www.cracked.com/article_17224_5-retarded-health-campaigns-that-backfired-hilariously.html
April 9th, 2009 at 11:10 am
Their description of California’s three strikes law appears to be inaccurate. But, hey, so was Slate’s and Slate isn’t presenting themselves as a comedy site.
From Patterico, an LA County district attorney – Slate Screws Up the Explanation of California’s Three Strikes Law: