With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". punishment for future convictions is clear. Presently, Appellant had reason to know that a conviction subsequent to his prior three would expose him to the three-strikes law mandatory minimum sentence. Moreover, it is possible to interpret the statute as purely punitive in nature, creating a harsher penalty not in the interests of rehabilitation of the offender, but because of a defendant’s repeated commissions of criminal acts. A dispute over the proper policy to be adopted by the Commonwealth should be left to the legislature and not to this Court. Although recidivist in nature, the language is clear, and the other sections cited by the Majority do not persuade me to override that language as clearly contrary to the purpose of the statute. I am bound by t 3001, 77 L.Ed.2d 637 (1983)

A: holding that a sentence of 25 years to life imposed for felony grand theft under californias threestrikes law did not violate the eighth amendment
B: holding that the mandatory life sentence provisions of 21 usc  841b1 do not violate the eighth amendment
C: holding that an effective life sentence of fortyfive years for seconddegree forgery was excessive and that a life sentence was cruel and unusual in violation of the eighth amendment
D: holding that it was a violation of the eighth amendment to sentence a defendant to life for a seventh nonviolent felony of writing a bad check for 10000
D.