“Fore!” may have been the word that Gary Ewing planned on screaming had he been successful in his theft of golf clubs from a Los Angeles country club. Unfortunately for Ewing, the Supreme Court whistled more to the tune of “Take Me Out to the Ball Game” and upheld California’s three strikes and you’re out law — or in Ewing’s case, three strikes and you are out for 25 years to life.

On March 5, the Supreme Court released its decision in the matter of Ewing v. California and Lockyer v. Andrade, both cases centering around California’s controversial statute. In a bitterly split 5-4 decision, the court upheld the statute.

Ewing is just one of more 7,000 felons incarcerated by California’s three-strikes law. The 1994 legislation calls for a mandatory 25 years to life sentence for repeat criminals convicted of a third felony. The law is also found on the federal level and in 26 other states.

Although it seems progressive and proactive in writing, loopholes and legal kinks surface in this statute’s adverse nature.

When enacted, the law seemed to be the answer to all the problems with recidivist criminals, especially in light of Polly Klaas. Klaas was kidnapped and murdered by Richard Allen Davis in 1993. She was just 12 years old. Davis was a parolee with two prior kidnapping convictions. In a vote likely charged more by emotion than knowledge, the residents of California approved the referendum by 71 percent, according to CNN.

Asking a populace to decide such a law when the grieving period is yet to pass is as deceptive as asking an entire nation if it supports bombing a country that harbors terrorists directly after terrorist attacks kill 3,000 people. The numbers in support of such an action are going to be considerably higher when emotions are high.

What seemed like a good law at the time has developed into what should be construed as cruel and unusual punishment. In Ewing’s case, he is being locked up for a minimum of 25 years without the chance of parole for the theft of three golf clubs that amount to a total of $1,197. According to the dissent by Justice Breyer, Ewing’s sentence is at least “two to three times the length of sentences that other jurisdictions would impose for similar consequences.”

If Ewing’s sentence seems disproportionate to the crime, imagine getting double that sentence for stealing videotapes. Such is the case for Leandro Andrade, who was sentenced to 50 years to life by the statute. Andrade stole approximately $150 worth of videotapes from two Kmarts in 1995. The nine movies stolen included “Snow White” and “Cinderella.”

Yes, this is the act of a hardened criminal. This is exactly the kind of man who needs to be kept off the streets for the rest of his life (note the sarcasm), which is exactly what the Supreme Court’s decision means for Andrade. Convicted when he was 37 years old, the 50-year mandatory sentence without possibility of parole mandates a life sentence.

Although Andrade’s most recent crime is truly only a misdemeanor, one of those darn legal kinks made it a felony. Due to his two prior felony burglary convictions, the misdemeanor was “upgraded” to a felony charge and became his third strike.

The prosecutor could have elected to not pursue the mandatory sentence but chose to anyway.

This decision by the Supreme Court is almost as offensive as the 1927 case of Buck v. Bell, in which Justice Holmes deemed it OK to sterilize a poor, unintelligent woman, stating that “three generations of imbeciles are enough.” Now we are claiming that we can lock up recidivist criminals in perpetuity, even if it is for petty theft. We are taking away these criminals’ right to liberty, in some cases for their entire life, even if the crime does not constitute such a penalty.

Whatever happened to rehabilition? Are these 7,000 men and women incapable of change? Is Andrade, a petty theft criminal, past the point of functioning in society? Absolutely not.

Sadly, the conservative majority of the high court disagrees with me, and their opinion is all that really matters. Despite the bitter dissents by Justices Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg and Breyer, Ewing, who is suffering from progressed AIDS, and Andrade will die in jail.

The Supreme Court has made the wrong decision. Justices Rehnquist, O’Connor, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy are guilty of upholding cruel and unusual punishment for hundreds, if not thousands, of inmates. Hopefully, this decision will become out of date in the future, just as Justice Holmes’ Buck decision is now.

In the case of Davis, such a penalty would have been justified. But he was a kidnapper and murderer.

Davis was a thief of life, not of golf clubs or children’s videos. The two cannot be looked upon by the same standard.