SCOTUS Strikes Down Three Strikes Law and Increased Sentencing Law as Violation of Due Process
Last edited Fri Jun 26, 2015, 11:27 AM - Edit history (1)
Source: Supreme Court of the United States of America
No excerpt, PDF direct link.
Read more: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-7120_p86b.pdf
Another direct blow to the failed punishment model of criminal justice that only America has embraced.
8 to 1 decision.
(On edit:
Six Justices think the residual clause is unconstitutional. Two Justices think that owning a short-barreled shotgun is not a violent felony, but is not unconstitutional, so they think that Johnson should win, but not for the constitutionality reason. And Justice Alito dissents as to both holdings. So the most important holding (in terms of people affected), I think is 6-3.)
http://live.scotusblog.com/Event/Live_blog_of_opinions__June_26_2015?Page=3#sthash.34aMdKGD.dpuf
Decision delivered by Scalia, J., for the Majority.
Kennedy and Thomas concur, separate judgments.
Dissent by Alito, J.
George II
(67,782 posts)ybbor
(1,601 posts)former9thward
(33,424 posts)Alito.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)samsingh
(17,900 posts)ybbor
(1,601 posts)But they are all so close
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)It doesn't matter. It's still horrible.
Response to msanthrope (Reply #9)
ybbor This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to msanthrope (Reply #9)
Atman This message was self-deleted by its author.
notadmblnd
(23,720 posts)I think he is probably the most extreme jurist on the bench. You can literally see the cray cray in his eyes.
Jazzgirl
(3,744 posts)n/t
Has an authoritarian streak a mile wide in him. He will always vote in favor of power, privilege, or punishment.
Should never have been given given Supreme Court position.
George II
(67,782 posts)Cha
(305,182 posts)make this shite up.
Myrina
(12,296 posts)n/t
ybbor
(1,601 posts)Myrina
(12,296 posts)Response to Myrina (Reply #74)
ybbor This message was self-deleted by its author.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)As always, thanks Nader.
rocktivity
(44,883 posts)Was a deal struck?
rocktivity
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)There's always fucking one.
Deadbeat Republicans
(111 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)Auggie
(31,775 posts)1% loses nothing in giving us the ACA, gay marriage and eliminating three strikes.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)valerief
(53,235 posts)have TPP.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)but maybe, just maybe, we'll be able to keep pushing on TPP. The ISDS is arguable unconstitutional as well.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)could be anything....fair wages, worker safety, regulation, etc. something will come up. wonder how the supremes will handle that. well i guess we know alito. anything that advances the human condition is a no with him.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)ISDS overrides our judicial system.
They'll retain power only over that which doesn't impact business in any way, shape or form. If any law or regulation in any way impacts a corporation's potential profits, under TPP's version of ISDS, they can sue in a tribunal that can levy unlimited fines and seize public property to pay them.
The supreme court and our entire judicial system will be rendered irrelevent. They may just not appreciate being made redundant.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)DebJ
(7,699 posts)news story link. I'm the only person on my FB feed that would actually even skim a SCOTUS document.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)csziggy
(34,189 posts)Updated by Dara Lind on June 26, 2015, 10:31 a.m. ET
In the case Johnson v. United States, the Supreme Court just struck down a provision of the Armed Career Criminal Act that says that someone's past crimes count as "violent" if they involve a risk of serious injury to another person even if the crime didn't actually involve violence.
The case was an 8-1 decision, but that's a little misleading. Six of the justices, led by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled that the provision in question was "unconsitutionally vague." Another two felt that the provision was constitutional, but that owning a sawed-off shotgun shouldn't count.
The court has been gunning for this clause for a while this is actually the fifth case in seven years dealing with it. For a while, they were waiting for Congress to fix it, but they've finally decided to strike it down.
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8845183/johnson-united-states
logosoco
(3,209 posts)It feels like so much has been lifted, and now we can really get rolling!!!!
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Mexican families...where the due process is being unconstitutionally delayed due to lack of funding for courts and lawyers by the GOP blockade of Obama's funding request.
That is for starters off the top of my head, if the decision is interpreted broadly.
"No person...shall be derived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" are magical words.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)It has been a shocking week.
MADem
(135,425 posts)packman
(16,296 posts)the sunshine must be blinding. This is major.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Maybe they are listening to us, after all. K&R
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Johnny2X2X
(21,712 posts)Just an amazing week for the cause of freedom in America. Wow!
frylock
(34,825 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)get a re-hearing on their sentence?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 26, 2015, 10:25 AM - Edit history (1)
subject to an increased or minimum sentence due to the finding over and above the punishment for the actual third crime, the "residual clause", then there has to be a new sentencing hearing, or the increased punishment over and above the first punishment for the crime is illegal.
That is the narrow interpretation.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)not violent, but their felony conviction was because of the amount of drugs...
We just have a ton of folks in prison because of overzealous drug convictions. I'd love to see those reviewed.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)struck down as being overly "vague", a death sentence for any law, means many cases will have to be resentenced, and this strikes at the heart of three strikes being used to increase sentences, the whole process being so vague as to violate due process rights.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)csziggy
(34,189 posts)From the article I linked to above (legitimate since I only posted three paragraphs there:
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8845183/johnson-united-states
List left
(627 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)lark
(24,121 posts)However, it's not going to happen. This court went out of it's way to make the Citizens United ruling, 5-4 are pure corporatists, they are 100% in favor. The only way it will even possibly change is if we get a Dem president and one of the traitors retires or dies. Even then, it'd take a Dem Senate to approve a progressive nominee. Of course, Congress could make it much better by requiring full disclosure, that would stop the secrecy. However, as long as Repugs control House and Senate, this will never happen. Even Dem control might not be sufficient if enough of them are DINOS.
Renew Deal
(82,911 posts)jwirr
(39,215 posts)titaniumsalute
(4,742 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)the display of conservative victim mentality was astonishing.
Renew Deal
(82,911 posts)He's basically saying that the court previously thought it was legal and is tired of dealing with these cases, so they threw it out. At least the beginning of the dissent is thoughtful.
The Court is tired of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984 (ACCA) and in particular its residual clause. Anxious to rid our docket of bothersome residual clause cases, the Court is willing to do what it takes to get the job done. So brushing aside stare decisis, the Court holds that the residual clause is unconstitutionally vague even though we have twice rejected that very argument within the last eight years. The canons of interpretation get no greater respect. Inverting the canon that a statute should beconstrued if possible to avoid unconstitutionality, the Court rejects a reasonable construction of the residualclause that would avoid any vagueness problems, preferring an alternative that the Court finds to be unconstitutionally vague. And the Court is not stopped by the well-established rule that a statute is void for vagueness only if it is vague in all its applications. While conceding that some applications of the residual clause are straightforward, the Court holds that the clause is now void in its entirety. The Courts determination to be done with residual clause cases, if not its fidelity to legal principles, is impressive.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)ACA stays (though I've been a frequent critic), marriage equality and FINALLY striking down that damned 3 Strikes law which originated in my neck of the woods.
I can't figure out what to be more excited about! This country ain't dead yet, babies!
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)is beginning to come down.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)How many years have us progressives waited for news like this and it's all coming down at once!
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)I am actually feeling a little pride about this country
jwirr
(39,215 posts)drop. Flags coming down, hate called into question, SCOTUS making good decisions, the Pope talking about Climate Change, Rs with 30 candidates. What is going on here?
I only hope it continues.
Stuart G
(38,726 posts)My guess is, that most will be released. That third crime was often less than the first two, but because it was a felony, in some states it meant lifetime, or very long, like 25 years tacked on...Totally unfair, this one makes me happy too......!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
closeupready
(29,503 posts)as I think he's now deceased, he would have definitely been released, pronto.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)is fairly clear from the decision, but the decision could be read more broadly as the entire underpinning for the enhanced sentence regime of the ACCA is struck down.
"The Armed Career Criminal Act is a federal variation of the "three strikes, you're out" laws that have been passed in several states though in this case, it's closer to "four strikes." If someone has three violent felonies (or "serious" drug crimes) on his record, the law tacks an extra five years onto his fourth conviction.
The problem is what crimes count as "violent felonies" since the law covers both state and federal crimes, and different states define violent crimes and felonies differently, it's not a term with a useful legal definition.
The law sets out some specific standards for "violent felonies." But it also included a catch-all, just in case: any crime that involves "conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another" gets counted as violent. That's the clause that the Supreme Court just struck down."
Spirochete
(5,264 posts)... and what have they done with the real Supreme court? They've been out of control with all these good decisions, lately...
bonniebgood
(949 posts)Spirochete
(5,264 posts)they can afford to be somewhat magnanimous, I suppose...
mountain grammy
(27,231 posts)Alito would be their spawn.
madamvlb
(495 posts)PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)so does that mean people punished under the three strikes can get out now like say the husband of Tia Torres on Pit bull and Parolees who was put away because someone else under him was caught with an illegal drug. Yet because it was related to him it was his third strike.
damnedifIknow
(3,183 posts)We are evolving.
stage left
(3,016 posts)Stuart G
(38,726 posts)samsingh
(17,900 posts)Kablooie
(18,755 posts)Response to Fred Sanders (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)For very minor crimes. The very people police love to stop for a 'tail light out' excuse, or 'stop and search' and then get them on anything to jail them for life.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)basis both of vagueness, as legally defined, and as a constitutional violation of the due process clause; I believe that the majority (6 to 3) used the Fifth Amendment to do so, thereby effecting the entirety of the legitimacy of the entire federal enhanced sentencing regime, and every other similar ones enacted by States.
More criminal law litigation to come regarding these constitutionally questionable enhanced sentencing regimes when legal beagles have done a full parsing.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)I wonder if the 'for profit' local court and prisons can be done away with.
Similar to when Canada got rid of 'for profit' criminal justice system and prisons. Unconstitutional, against a prisoners basic civil rights.
yikes1
(22 posts)was that instituted under Clinton or bush? I always get the two mixed up, but good for the SCOTUS. they seemed to be doing great work this week!!
Hekate
(94,503 posts)...of the country.
annabanana
(52,791 posts)LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)This is HUGE!! And the RIGHT Decision under Due Process of the Law!
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)But, knowing the RW5 there are really bad decisions coming. I hope I am wrong about that.
former9thward
(33,424 posts)First this affected federal prisoners not state. Second many will be re-sentenced but they were convicted of crimes which gave them long sentences anyway. Most of the posters have really misunderstood this case.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)former9thward
(33,424 posts)Probably cases will be filed Monday morning.
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)marble falls
(62,020 posts)will this ruling be retroactive or only into the future?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)As well as prospective.
marble falls
(62,020 posts)BumRushDaShow
(141,723 posts)yesphan
(1,599 posts)Now, is Civil Forfeiture on the agenda ?
udbcrzy2
(891 posts)I wonder how it will for this guy?
Monterey County Judge Julie Culver said the prison sentence she handed down Tuesday was harsh, but said she believed it was necessary to protect the public from Hortons predatory behavior.
Horton's now-estranged wife asked the court to impose the maximum sentence on behalf of herself and all of Hortons past victims. The sentence was also enhanced under the Three Strikes Law.
http://www.ksbw.com/news/convicted-salinas-rapist-ordered-to-serve-156-years-in-prison/32851996
Hekate
(94,503 posts)myrna minx
(22,772 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)Thank you for posting this!! I really appreciate it, this issue is very important to me.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)Three strikes has gotten a lot of drug addicts thrown in jail for very long times.
colsohlibgal
(5,276 posts)No more people doing life for 3 convictions that are really minor.
And yes, Alito would likely have been at home with in Nazi Germany. When even Scalia doesn't dissent you know you have issues Mr. Alito.
okasha
(11,573 posts)Uncle Joe
(60,085 posts)Thanks for the thread, Fred Sanders.
DonCoquixote
(13,700 posts)but it damned well should.
Judi Lynn
(162,357 posts)TexasBushwhacker
(20,653 posts)that are thrilled about this. Judges don't like having their hands tied when it comes to sentencing and states are going broke incarcerating criminals that have life sentences because they've committed 3 nonviolent crimes. The private prison LOST!
Matariki
(18,775 posts)Kind of amazing.