[Mandatory Sentencing]
John Cloud, "A Get-Tough Policy That Failed: Mandatory sentencing was once America's law-and-order panacea. Here's why it's not working," Time Magazine, February 1, 1999, p. 48.

The writer points to several exceptional cases where the three-strikes laws of different states have put minor offenders in jail for a long time. It also points to the coincidental increase in prison population with the 1988 three-strikes movement.

• Do "exceptional" cases like these invalidate three-strikes and mandatory sentencing? Why or why not?
• What other reasons might there be for the coincidental rise in prison populations?

[Mandatory Minimum Sentencing]
Eric Pape, "You're Out!" (the three-strikes law in California), Los Angeles Magazine, August 1999, p. 34.

As written, the three-strikes law in California does not differentiate between property and violent crimes as the "third strike." It does, however, allow both the judge and the prosecutor to use their own discretion to apply the law when appropriate. Statistically, 40 percent of the state's "strike-out" victims committed violent crimes; 30 percent were convicted of property crimes; and 20 percent for drug-related crimes and drug possession. Gil Garcetti, the Los Angeles District Attorney, says his prosecutors have only sought life imprisonment in 2000 of 400,000 felony cases.

• Does a long history of crimes merit time in a super-maximum security prison? Why or why not?
• What effects do three-strikes legislation have on prison crowding?