Bergslaw.com blog

Reassessing California’s Three Strike Law
Tuesday, May 25, 2010 - 11:38

In the state of California, a non-confrontational burglary, petty theft, and a minor drug infraction could land a person in prison for life. This is possible because of California’s three-strike law passed in 1994. The law was billed as keeping career criminals who commit serious crimes out of society for life. However, in California the term serious encompasses more than crimes such as murder, rape, child molestation and armed robbery and is left up to interpretation. Therefore, California has inmates serving life sentences who have never done anything more “serious” than petty theft. It is for this reason that many Californians are calling for the three-strikes law to be reformed.

Individuals such as Los Angeles District attorney, Steve Cooley, and attorney Michael Romano are taking steps towards this reform. Cooley has created a policy in his office that keeps the prosecutors from asking for life sentences unless one or more of the crimes have been violent or serious. This has dropped the number of LA County three-strike convictions by 39%. Romano started a clinic at Stanford Law School in order to appeal the convictions of offenders serving life sentences under the law who had never committed a violent or serious crime. One must applaud these individuals for trying to fix a law that has been left too broad for too long. While few would argue that the strikes law isn’t necessary, a growing number believe it should be reserved for the violent offenders who pose a threat to society. What side will you be on if the reform effort for the three-strike law takes hold?

View or add comments
No More Life Sentences for Juveniles
Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 11:45

Last month, the Supreme Court ruled that juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses may no longer be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole, as this sentence goes against the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling makes states provide a juvenile with “some realistic opportunity to obtain release” if a life sentence is imposed. Life without parole sentences for juveniles are very rare with the court finding only 129 such convictions.

Because of its rarity, one is left to wonder if it is an issue that needed much consideration. One justice recommended a case-by-case approach, which it appears most states have already been practicing. The ruling was also vague in that it failed to define the term “realistic”. Instead, the ruling would have been more profound had it imposed a limitation on the number of years.

With this ruling also brings to the forefront the “age debate”. Is a 17 year old who brutally rapes a young woman any more ready to enter society again than an 18 year old who commits a comparable crime? Under the new ruling, the 17 year old would not be able to receive a life without parole sentence, making him less punishable and less accountable for his actions than someone just a year older. The recent ruling is yet another example of America’s complicated legal system. Sometimes a ruling creates more questions than answers.

View or add comments
Debt Collection Causing Clogged California Courts
Wednesday, April 28, 2010 - 11:15

“96,000 consumer debt–collection cases were filed in 2009 in three California counties alone”, according to the Federal Government Accountability office. This is a 20% increase from the previous five years. With the economy in shambles, it us expected that increasingly more individuals will default on a debt. At the same time, it is also becoming more popular for debt collection agencies to take legal action and file suites against individuals in default. These two issues have combined to create even more problems for the already inundated California court system.

Therefore, a few California legal groups are coming together to help individuals who have defaulted or are close, so they do not end up in court. These groups are providing legal clinics to help educate people about debt collection. Currently, most individuals in default do not respond to the legal actions being brought against them, as they do not know how. Collectors count on this so they can then garnish wages and bank accounts. By helping get people informed, legal groups are hoping that they can decrease the number of cases filed. This is both helpful to the individual and to the court system, as both will ultimately save money.

If you live in the Bay Area and are in the need of information regarding debt collection, contact the Bar Association of San Francisco. You can help yourself and help save your state money!

View or add comments
What to Do if You Suspect a Spouse is Cheating
Wednesday, April 21, 2010 - 13:22

Infidelity seems to be at the forefront of Hollywood as well as the world of professional sports, and Tiger Woods and Jesse James are only two of the latest celebrities to be in the news for their extramarital affairs. From Tiger’s infamous car crash in November that led to the revelation of his affairs to Sandra Bullock discovering her husband’s affairs, cheating spouses is a hot topic of conversation. While these celebrities’ infidelities were brought to light due to the individuals being high profile, how do you or I, the average person, find out if our spouse or significant other is cheating? Our partner could choose to tell us, but this is rarely the case. So what are your options if you suspect your significant other is being unfaithful?

One option is to hire a company that offers investigative services. Private investigators may seem like something out of the movies; however, they are in fact an effective means to finding proof of a cheating spouse or proof that your spouse is staying faithful. Enlisting in the help of professionals will provide you with the peace of mind from knowing the truth. The information the investigation does or does not reveal will arm you with what you need to know in order to make the most informed and best decision for you. It may just keep you from making a terrible mistake. Regardless of what you decide to do with the information, you will be empowered.

While most investigators find that their client’s intuition is usually right, it is also important to note that infidelity statistics still show it to be a relatively low occurrence. So before retaliate, get proof.

View or add comments
Debate Over California’s Sex Offender Laws
Thursday, April 15, 2010 - 08:37

How safe are our children from sex offenders? While no parent wants to think about the possibility of his or her child being in danger, it is the reality, and one that parents prepare for. It is also a reality that lawmakers prepare for. Laws such as Megan’s Law and Jessica’s Law are in place to keep kids out of the hands of sex offenders. Now, a new proposed law, Chelsea’s Law, is hoping to accomplish the same thing. But what are these laws and are they really keeping our children safer?
Megan’s Law was passed in California in 2004 and was designed to allow the public to keep informed of where sex offenders live. It requires sex offenders to register with the state and allows the general public to go online and view the number of sex offenders in their neighborhood or city. Jessica’s Law takes it a few steps further and restricts where sex offenders can live and has a provision that allows sexually violent predators to be sent to prison indefinitely. The proposed Chelsea’s Law would place even further restrictions and have tougher sentences for sex offenders. Notably, it would include a one-strike provision for some offenses, would increase the minimum sentence, and keep offenders from visiting public spaces without prior permission.

While all of these laws sound great and are certainly backed by public opinion, debates are waging over whether these laws are really protecting our children as well as if specific provisions in these laws violate the offender’s civil rights. California Supreme Court is currently looking at the legality of treating sex offenders differently than other offenders, as Jessica’s Law does. Now it is being questioned if the same issues could arise with Chelsea’s Law. As for these laws keeping our children safer, it has been argued that Megan’s Law is not helpful, as the online database is confusing and vague and Jessica’s Law displaces offenders from their homes, increasing the likelihood they will reoffend. Furthermore, Chelsea’s Law focuses on longer sentences, which has not been shown to be effective.

Regardless of which side of the debates you are on, it is apparent that we must keep diligently looking at the laws already in place; how can they be made to be more effective and not violate the rights of any individual. There is a common goal of keeping children out of danger, and we must keep striving for it.

View or add comments
Syndicate content