Opinion ID: 351722
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: A comparison of the punishment provided in other jurisdictions.

Text: 38 We believe that a similar analysis is useful here, and it leads us to hold that defendant's sentence was not disproportionate. 39 First, information on which the district court relied showed that the defendant committed several acts of violence including the totally unnecessary vicious action of shooting in the head a man whom defendant had beaten into a state of helplessness. This act resulted in the 1972 manslaughter conviction. The testimony at the § 3575 hearing also revealed that many of the offenses committed by the defendant were violent in nature and the result of force, or the threat of force. 40 Second, the legislative purpose behind the statute is ascertainable from § 3575 itself, where Congress defined a defendant as dangerous if a period of confinement longer than that provided for such felony is required for the protection of the public from future criminal conduct by the defendant. 18 U.S.C. § 3575(f). Through the enactment of this section, Congress intended to provide the public with protection from repeat offenders by enhancing the incarceration the offender faced for any one crime. We cannot say that the sentence of eight years imposed by the district court is unnecessary to accomplish the legislative purpose of § 3575. See Hart v. Coiner, supra at 141. Unlike Hart, where we held that life imprisonment was totally unnecessary when the defendant had been convicted of writing bad checks, interstate transportation of forged checks, and perjury, the nature of the offenses here do not indicate that the legislative purposes would be abused by an eight-year sentence. 41 Finally, other jurisdictions provide severer sentences for habitual offenders than does § 3575. 12 42 For these reasons, and from a review of the record, and the briefs, and from oral argument, we cannot say that the sentence imposed by the district court is disproportionate in severity to the maximum term otherwise authorized for the underlying felony. 43 Accordingly, both the conviction of the defendant and the sentence imposed under 18 U.S.C. § 3575 are 44 AFFIRMED.