Although often criticised on its logic, the SCOTUS in recent years has held that legislatures can freely set the sentences for any crime as they wish, and the length of the sentence for any crime does not fall under the 'Cruel and Unusual Punishment' clause. They have held that it only applies to types of punishments and not to proportionality questions on the lengths of sentences (an example would be that if a court sentenced John Doe to undergo some wierd torture procedure then this would fall under the C & U clause, whilst getting life without parole for smoking a joint under a statute that allows that sentence would not fall under the C & U clause).

What puzzles me here--besides not writing the laws sensibly--is why the state simply doesn't withdraw the charges. Even the drafters said it wasn't intended to apply this way; it merely does by its wording. Thus, the Governor or other higher-ups ought to instruct the District Attorney to simply withdraw the charges and release him. If anyone is stupid enough not to do this in elected office, the ballot box is a perfect remedy. No person who thinks this is a fair use of that law has proper head sense and ought to be voted out or removed. The District Attorney ought to be voted out for thinking this is acceptable, and if he is appointed, then he ought to be removed and the voting public ought to make that clear.

__________________