In 1983, a young man named Michael was arraigned in a Pennsylvania court for armed robbery: he stole $50 from a driver taxi driver using a toy gun. . A few days later he was arrested and convicted. Although the trial judge sentenced Michael to 6 months in prison and demanded that he repay the $50, the prosecutor demanded the minimum 5-year sentence required by state law. The trial judge declared the mandatory sentencing law unconstitutional, and Michael served his prison sentence and repaid the money. Four years later, the state Supreme Court ordered the trial judge to sentence Michael to 5 years in prison. The trial judge refused and resigned. The judge assigned the case allowed Michael to remain free pending another appeal to the state Supreme Court. Michael realized the futility of his case in court and quietly disappeared. He is still at large today. Recently, one of the most popular propositions in efforts to get tough on crime has been the "three strikes and you're out..." proposition. The law, already on the books in Washington state and California, requires offenders convicted of three violent felonies to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. This proposal received broad support from federal and state politicians, including President Bill Clinton, Senator Bob Dole and Governor Mario Cuomo. The law is based on the idea that the majority of crimes are committed by 6% of "hard-core" criminals, and that crime can be reduced by getting these criminals off the streets. Unfortunately, the proposal ignores several major flaws in the law and its implementation. The first problem with the proposal is its principle of removing judicial discretion, which seriously hampers the judge's ability to tailor the sentence to the crime. In Washington, a man faces life in prison if convicted of his third crime: stealing $120 from a sandwich shop by putting his finger in his pocket and pretending to have a gun. His two previous convictions were for similar crimes. While it is certainly true that some incorrigible criminals deserve life in prison, it is patently unfair to create a sweeping standard that would require courts to sentence offenders to life in prison for relatively minor crimes. The three-strikes law gives no discretion to the judge in cases like that of the Washington man or Michael..