Legal Question in Criminal Law in California

You have highlighted an issue that was litigated when Three Strikes came out. The United States Constitution bans Ex Post Facto laws or laws that punish conduct after it has already been committed but it was not illegal at the time it was committed.

The courts came out with a decision that says that Three Strikes is Constitutional because it only punishes new crimes. Everyone that has a pre-existing Strike is on notice that if they commit a new crime the punishment will be 'enhanced'.

To be illegal the Three Strikes law would have required police to go out and re-arrest people who had Strikes and punish them again even if they had not committed a new offense.

This was a great question, thanks for asking it.

It isn't, and you aren't. There are no new charges, trial, or sentencing for the old crime on which you have already been punished. However, prior convictions have always been counted and used as 'priors' for the purpose of penalty enhancements in new cases. 3-Strikes merely codifies and defines the enhancements, instead of leaving it up to individual discretion of the judge or jury. 3-Strikes is just one aspect of our 'mandatory sentencing' laws, which are intended to stop a 'revolving door' system of letting repeat offenders out with a 'slap on the wrist' insufficient punishment, only to commit yet another crime. In the 'old days' many states imposed life in prison or even the death penalty for 'habitual criminals', meaning repeat offenders. It was then, and is now, intended as a deterrent to reduce crime. Quite constitutional, quite fair, and quite natural for the public to enact in order to deal with rampant violent crime and recidivism rates, which were about 55% before 3-Strikes went into effect, and have dropped to about 40%. That sounds like good deterrence to most people. Men of good faith can disagree about how to refine the details of 3-Strikes, but the concept is sound, and certainly not new.