Skip to main content
News

Ruling Against “Three Strikes” Sentencing Law Opens Door to Reform

June 30, 2015
Writing in Truthout, The Sentencing Project's Director of Advocacy Nicole Porter explains how a recent Supreme Court ruling highlights the complicated nature of sentencing laws that result in lengthy prison terms.

Writing in Truthout, The Sentencing Project’s Director of Advocacy Nicole Porter explains how a recent Supreme Court ruling highlights the complicated nature of sentencing laws that result in lengthy prison terms. In Johnson v. United States, the Supreme Court found a provision of a federal “three strikes” law to be unconstitutional.

For stakeholders interested in addressing mass incarceration, there are opportunities to revisit similar policies at the state level. Lawmakers can repeal sentencing enhancement laws and allow judges to depart from statutory minimums. Nevada, for example, granted discretion to judges to impose shortened enhanced sentences for eligible offenses. Prior to the law change, a person convicted of a felony committed on school property would face the statutory punishment for the charged conduct, plus a sentence enhancement equal to the statutory punishment. At the federal level, to implement the court’s ruling, Congress can address sentencing enhancements that lengthen statutory punishments.

Read the full commentary on Truthout.

 
Related Posts
publications
July 20, 2022

Comment on Home Confinement Under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act

The Sentencing Project's Executive Director Amy Fettig submitted comments to the Office of the Attorney General on behalf of The Sentencing project regarding the United States Department of Justice’s proposed rule on CARES Act Home Confinement.
publications
July 27, 2022

Comments to the Food and Drug Administration on the Proposed Ban of Menthol Cigarettes

The Sentencing Project submitted comments to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the proposed Tobacco Product Standard for Menthol in Cigarettes.