Judge
Johnson’s persuasive dissenting opinion with one caveat. I am doubtful that the three-pronged dispropor- tionality test set out by this Court in Rummel v. Estelle, 587 F.2d 651 (5th Cir. 1978), still retains the vitality Judge Johnson at- tributes to it in determining the validity1 of statutes such as that here involved. Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263 (1980). But, absent the specific applicability and force of the three-pronged test, the opinion never- theless stands as an effective statement of what should be the law of this case. A: (by counsel for