Actor Winona Ryder walked into a Saks Fifth Avenue department store last year and walked out with $5,500 worth of tony clothes, without paying. She was convicted of the theft earlier this month, and prosecutors say they intend to ask for probation, community service and restitution. The punishment sounds about right for a first offense.

Now, compare that to the case of Leandro Andrade, a drug-addicted loser in California who would be doing prison time in obscurity if it weren't for the fact that his theft of $153 in videotapes bought him a sentence of 50 years-to-life. Andrade's case is before the U.S. Supreme Court in a challenge to California's "three-strikes" law, under which three-time offenders are given exceptionally long sentences. While Andrade had other property crimes in his background -- a fact that could certainly justify prison time for his petty offense -- the state went well beyond what is a just punishment for such an inconsequential crime.

The Supreme Court has grappled with the issue of disproportionate sentencing before. In a 1983 case it ruled unconstitutional a life sentence given to a man for passing a $100 bad check -- his seventh offense. The court found the sentence shocking to the conscience and a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment. In recent years, though, the court has not been terribly disposed to having its conscience shocked. Reports of the oral argument in Andrade's case seemed to indicate that few of the justices were discomforted by his harsh sentence.

California's "three-strike" rule was passed by referendum in 1994. Unlike similar sentencing schemes in other states, California's law doesn't require any of the crimes to be violent. And prosecutors may convert misdemeanors into felonies if there are similar prior offenses. That is what happened to Andrade. His petty crime was treated as two felonies, since he stole the videotapes on two occasions.

But objectively, Andrade's sentence doesn't fit the crime. It is longer than the typical sentence for second-degree murder or rape in California. And it certainly bears no relationship to the punishment Ryder will face for her theft of merchandise of substantially more value.

Andrade is in this situation because, in the early 1990s, the populace was fed up with spiraling crime rates and recidivist offenders. California's citizens reacted to the 1993 murder of 12-year-old Polly Klaas by a paroled repeat offender with a broadly worded referendum that had the unintended consequence of sweeping in minor criminals. Andrade is one of 344 people in the state who have fallen under the "three-strikes" law by commiting petty theft.

While, as a general proposition, states should be left to design their own criminal justice systems, the Constitution and the federal courts provide a check when the public's taste for vengeance goes too far. Facing a lifetime in prison for stealing a handful of videotapes is cruel punishment and one that should not be allowed under the Eighth Amendment.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page