The two cases giving rise to the Supreme Court's current review of California's "Three Strikes" law involves one guy who was convicted of stealing over $1,000 worth of golf clubs and another guy who stole about $150 worth of videotapes. The latter fellow was given 50 years in prison without possibility of parole, while the former was subject to a sentence of 25 years to life with the possibility of parole. The big question I struggle with "Three Strikes" sentencing is the propriety of factoring in past convictions for which a person has technically paid his debt to society for. Such a scenario almost seems like a person is being subjected to double jeopardy for a single crime, which is patently unconstitutional. Yet, there is little question that "Three Strikes" is largely responsible for the dramatic drop in crime in California, and has probably saved many lives. This is really one of those times that I'm glad I'm not a Supreme Court Justice.