CA’s Racially Biased Life Sentences Challenged
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
A powerful legal challenge is confronting California’s history of racially biased life sentences. In a landmark move, Stanford Law School’s Three Strikes Project has joined forces with the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), a premier civil rights law firm (naacpldf.org). They recently filed petitions for 18 Black and Latino individuals serving life sentences for minor crimes under the state’s infamous “Three Strikes” law (cbs8.com). This effort uses the groundbreaking California Racial Justice Act (CRJA) and startling new prison data as its weapons. The data reveals that people of color receive far harsher punishments than white people for the same offenses. Consequently, if these cases succeed, they could free people from unjust sentences and create a vital blueprint for dismantling racially skewed sentencing across the country.
The Shadow of “Habitual Criminal” Laws
To understand today’s fight, we must look back a century. California’s Three Strikes law did not appear out of nowhere. It has deep roots in early “habitual criminal” laws from the 1920s (cbs8.com). An early version passed in 1923 mandated life sentences for certain third felony convictions. These laws were disturbingly connected to the eugenics movement, a pseudoscientific social philosophy popular in the early 20th century (cbs8.com). The eugenics movement promoted the racist idea that human society could be improved by preventing “undesirable” people from having children (berkeley.edu).
Proponents of eugenics believed traits like criminality were hereditary and common among specific groups, including racial minorities and the poor (berkeley.edu). Therefore, this ideology provided a so-called scientific justification for laws designed to control and remove these populations from society. This dark history shows that from the very beginning, laws targeting repeat offenders were entangled with racist efforts to manage and suppress communities of color. This foundation of bias laid the groundwork for the punitive sentencing policies that would follow decades later.
The Birth of Three Strikes Sentencing
California’s modern “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law was born in 1994, a time of intense public fear about crime (cbs8.com). It passed through both a legislative bill, AB 971, and a voter initiative, Proposition 184 (cbs8.com). This law became one of the most severe in the nation. It required a sentence of 25 years to life for almost any new felony if a person had two prior convictions for serious or violent crimes. The law’s broad reach quickly led to shocking outcomes.
People received life sentences for non-violent offenses like stealing a dollar in loose change or possessing small amounts of drugs (cbs8.com). The law’s stated purpose was to keep dangerous criminals locked up. However, its application swept up thousands of people, disproportionately Black and Latino, for minor infractions. Over half of all inmates sentenced under the original law are serving time for non-violent crimes (cbs8.com). Furthermore, the law is estimated to have added over $19 billion in cumulative costs to the state’s prison budget since its inception.
California’s Racial Disparities in Incarceration
Data from research provided shows stark overrepresentation of Black and Latino people in California’s prisons (cbs8.com).
The Hurdle of McCleskey v. Kemp
For decades, proving racial bias in court was almost impossible. The 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case McCleskey v. Kemp created a major roadblock for justice (amnestyusa.org). The court ruled that statistical evidence showing racial disparities in sentencing was not enough to prove discrimination (amnestyusa.org). Instead, a defendant had to prove that decision-makers in their specific case acted with intentional discriminatory purpose. This set an impossibly high standard.
This ruling meant that even with clear data showing Black defendants were more likely to receive harsh sentences, the system itself could not be challenged (amnestyusa.org). One had to find a smoking gun, like a prosecutor or judge admitting to racial prejudice in a specific case. The decision effectively shielded the criminal justice system from accountability for systemic racism. Consequently, it left countless victims of bias with no legal path to relief for over 30 years.
A New Weapon for Justice: The CRJA
The national conversation about racial injustice, especially after the murder of George Floyd, pushed California to act. In 2020, the state passed the California Racial Justice Act, or CRJA (AB 2542) (cbs8.com). This groundbreaking law was specifically designed to overcome the barrier created by McCleskey v. Kemp. It prohibits the state from seeking or getting a conviction, or imposing a sentence, based on race, ethnicity, or national origin (ca.gov).
Most importantly, the CRJA allows defendants to use statistical evidence of racial disparities to challenge their cases (ca.gov). They no longer need to prove individual, intentional discrimination. The law also has been made retroactive, offering a chance at justice for people who were sentenced long before it was passed (cbs8.com). This act provides a powerful new tool to attack systemic bias directly. For that reason, it represents a critical step toward creating a more equitable justice system in the state.
The Reach of California’s Three Strikes Law
Data highlights the widespread impact of the law, lengthening sentences for over a third of the prison population (cbs8.com).
The Current Fight for Fair Sentencing
The new petitions filed by the Three Strikes Project and the LDF represent a major test of the CRJA’s power. The Three Strikes Project is a legal clinic at Stanford Law School dedicated to representing people serving life sentences for minor offenses (stanford.edu). Its partner, the Legal Defense Fund, is America’s first civil rights law firm, founded in 1940 by Thurgood Marshall (naacpldf.org). Together, they are fighting for 18 Black and Latino clients who embody the injustices of the original Three Strikes law (cbs8.com). Their goal is to “break the log jam” of successful claims under the CRJA and create a proven model for others to follow.
The legal process for these petitions will be lengthy. After filing, the California Supreme Court reviews the cases. If the court finds merit, it can order lower courts to hold evidentiary hearings (horvitzlevy.com). These hearings allow defendants to present new evidence, including the powerful statistical data showing systemic bias. For these 18 individuals, a successful outcome could mean a new, fairer sentence or even release. Beyond that, these cases could set a critical precedent, making it easier for thousands of others to challenge their sentences and bringing California one step closer to ending racially biased sentencing.
Unequal Justice: Longer Sentences for the Same Crime
Data released in October 2025 shows people of color receive significantly longer sentences for identical crimes (cbs8.com).
The Path Forward and Lingering Questions
Despite reforms like Proposition 36 in 2012, which limited life sentences to serious or violent third strikes, racial disparities have persisted (cbs8.com). In fact, the Black-White imprisonment disparity in California actually increased by 11% between 2000 and 2019 (cbs8.com). This confusing outcome shows that changing one part of the law is not enough. Ongoing bias in policing, prosecutors’ charging decisions, and judicial discretion continue to produce unequal results. The entire system requires examination.
Of course, supporters of the original Three Strikes law argue it is a vital tool for public safety (capolicylab.org). They claim that it deters crime by keeping repeat offenders incarcerated and that disparities reflect different crime rates, not systemic bias. They often focus on individual accountability, suggesting that those who commit multiple felonies deserve harsher penalties. However, the data on unequal sentencing for the same crimes challenges this view directly. This new legal fight, armed with the CRJA and clear evidence, is not just about freeing 18 people. It is about confronting a century of biased laws and demanding a justice system that is truly just for everyone.
About the Author
Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching for over 20 years. He is the founder of African Elements, a media platform dedicated to providing educational resources on the history and culture of the African diaspora. Through his work, Spearman aims to empower and educate by bringing historical context to contemporary issues affecting the Black community.
