Case brief summary
The part of the Constitution banning cruel and unusual punishment also bars prison sentences that are grossly out of proportion to the crime committed, but courts should rarely second guess a legislature's sentencing choices, especially for repeat offenders.
Facts
Gary Ewing, a repeat offender on parole, stole golf clubs worth about 1,200 dollars. California's three strikes law gave him a sentence of 25 years to life.
Procedural history
A California trial court sentenced Ewing under the three strikes law. The appeals court upheld it, the state supreme court refused review, and the U.S. Supreme Court took the case.
Issue
Does giving a repeat offender 25 years to life for stealing golf clubs count as cruel and unusual punishment because it's too harsh for the crime?
Holding
The Supreme Court held that Ewing's sentence was not grossly disproportionate to his crime and did not violate the ban on cruel and unusual punishment, so the sentence was upheld.
Reasoning
States can punish repeat criminals harshly to protect public safety, and courts should respect that choice. Since Ewing's theft came after a long criminal history, the long sentence was reasonable, not excessive.
Opinions
Majority (O'Connor): A repeat offender's current crime must be judged together with his past crimes, and California's tough three strikes sentence here was not grossly disproportionate.
Concurrences (Scalia, Thomas): The ban on cruel and unusual punishment does not really contain a proportionality rule for prison terms, so judges should not try to apply one here.
Dissent (Stevens): The ban on cruel and unusual punishment does require proportionality review for all punishments, and judges are capable of applying that standard case by case.
Dissent (Breyer): Comparing this sentence to earlier Supreme Court decisions and to sentences in other states and for other crimes, 25 years to life for stealing golf clubs is grossly disproportionate and unconstitutional.