The Unprincipled Punishment of Repeat Offenders: A Critique of California's Habitual Criminal Statute
Stanford Law Review, Vol. 43, No. 1, 1990
- 1,632Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Paper Description
Recidivist statutes in the United States come in many shapes and sizes. Some impose short jail terms on habitual traffic offenders, while others mandate life sentences for all third felony offenders. Among the most noteworthy of modern recidivist statutes is the California Habitual Criminal Statute, §667 of the California Penal Code. Section 667 is, without a doubt, the harshest of California's many recidivist provisions. This note presents a detailed critique of §667. It argues that §667 is inconsistent with each of the four generally accepted punishment theories: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation. And, in the absence of repeal, California courts should interpret §667 as narrowly as possible. And finally, this note proffers an alternative to §667 that would attempt to limit penalty enhancements to those specific offenders who are considered exceptionally likely to commit serious crimes once released from prison, and to assign such enhancements in a fair and proportionate fashion.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know