NaEwing V. Californiame - Amendment’s prohibition on...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Name: Ewing V. California Citation: 538 U.S. 11 123 S. Ct. 1179, 155 L. Ed. 2d’ 108 United States Supreme Court, 2003 Facts: Gary Ewing, on parole from a nine-year prison term, was prosecuted for stealing. Due to his prior convictions, the crime was treated as a felony based on California’s “three strikes” law. Ewing was convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life. He appealed based on the violation of the Eighth Amendment. Appellant: Ewing Appellee: California Issue: Did Ewing sentence violate the Eighth Amendment? Holding: Ewing’s sentence is not grossly disproportionate and therefore does not violate the Eighth
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Reasoning: Nothing in the Eighth Amendment prohibits California from making the choice to protect the public safety by incapacitating criminals who have already been convicted of at least one serious or violent crime. The Appellant’s sentence is justified by the State’s public safety interest in incapacitating and deterring recidivist felons, and amply supported by his own long, serious criminal record....
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 06/05/2011 for the course ACCT 323 taught by Professor Eubanks during the Spring '11 term at Athens University of Econ and Bus.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online