THREE STRIKE LAW?

CON: Leandro Andrade is an army veteran and a father of three who is in prison due to the three-strike law in California. According to CBS, he is serving two consecutive life sentences for stealing nine children's videotapes in total worth $153.54, including "Snow White," "Cinderella" and "Free Willie 2" on two occasions in November 1995, in an attempt to provide his children with Christmas presents. Andrade will be 87 years old before he is even eligible for parole. Andrade said this: Im not a killer. I'm not a rapist. I'm really not a bad person once you get to know me. Do I deserve to be locked up for the rest of my life, because a certain judge feels that's what he deserves? The answer, is no. The Three Strikes Law, which was passed in 1994 in California, should not be mandated across the United States. One of the main reasons for this is the 8th amendment. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. People like Leandro Andrade will be in prison for the rest of his life, while if he lived in any other state he would have already been out of prison for the crimes he committed nearly 16 years ago. This is, without doubt, an obvious violation to the constitution. In fact, according to a report by CBS, nearly half of the 7,000 imprisoned due to the three-strikes law are

there because of non-violent crimes. Three examples of these people are Greg Pierson, whose third strike was for possession of stolen property. Robert James was locked up for petty theft; shoplifting some food and beer from a supermarket. And Darren Stokes is serving three consecutive life terms for possession of narcotics. But Andrade along with the previously mentioned is just one situation that the Three Strikes Law makes very unfair. There are people that are murderers who have instead of being put in prison to protect society, have been let go and give another two chances before they are imprisoned. How is it not cruel and unusual that people like Andrade who have committed the most minor of crimes for understandable reasons be given the same punishment as a person who killed three people? Another reason why it would be a mistake to mandate a three-strike law would be the fact that while this resolution states that With decreased crime comes decreased spending on prisons and inmates, the Three-Strikes law, as all of you know, mandates a minimum 25 year sentence. Last time I checked, keeping people in prisons for long periods of time is not cost-efficient, and certainly doesnt save space in penitentiaries. Yes, there is reduced crime, but the people that normally wouldnt have been in jail for long periods of time would be imprisoned for 25 years to life, so the two points collide and eventually leave the

progress at a standstill. A nationwide three strikes law would not save money, not only due to the aforementioned reason, but also due to the fact that if a person commits a crime a third time, they are obviously going to want to plead not guilty. Trials do cost money. According to legaldefinition.us, the average criminal court case costs the government approximately $5,000 dollars per day. It would be much cheaper to just arrest a person for a small crime in the first place than holding a lengthy, expensive trial. In conclusion, this resolution proves itself not only unconstitutional, irrational, but also it is not space or cost efficient. People like Leandro Andrade will become abundant if a national Three Strikes Law were to be in place and people who committed more serious offenses would be let free to roam, even if prisons are build specifically for keeping people like those out of society. The U.S criminal justice system will never be perfect, but turning it into a cookie cutter, one size fits all system isnt going to help anything. No criminal case is exactly the same, and by mandating a certain sentence, you are not only reducing flexibility in the courtroom, but also denying people the right to a truly fair trial. That is why I urge all of you to vote in the negation of this one size fits all resolution. Thank you.