Generally when someone starts talking about three strikes, minds wander to America’s national pastime, baseball. Rarely would this be considered cruel and unusual punishment, unless you are the batter that just got thrown out. However, when it comes to law, the “three strikes” statute is just that.

The three—strikes law was passed in California in 1994. It didn’t just pass by a small margin, either; it was voted in with 71 percent support. This is likely due to the death of 12-year-old Polly Klaas. Klaas was killed by Richard Allen Davis, who previously had two convictions for kidnapping under his belt.

The law states that once a person is convicted of a third felony, they are sentenced to a mandatory prison term of 25 years to life. This strict measure may take killers like Davis off the street, but it ends up as cruel and unusual punishment for others.

This statute can potentially lock up those convicted of shoplifting, if they have two prior felony charges. With the preceding felonies, the petty theft under which they are currently being tried can be viewed as a third felony, and then the person is locked up for a minimum of 25 years. This could amount to 9,125 days in prison for stealing something like a purse, or even underwear.

This certainly violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the Eighth Amendment. It takes away the fundamental right of liberty without true due process. It locks up a person for a duration fitting for a murderer or kidnapper, not an underwear thief.

The three strikes issue finally went before the Supreme Court on Nov. 5. It reviewed the convictions of two men under the law. One of the men, Leandro Andrade, was given two successive 25-years-to-life sentences in 1995 when he was convicted of stealing videotapes. Because he had been charged before with felony burglary, he fell victim to the heinous legislation.

California argues that since Andrade was a “habitual offender” that he should be kept under lock and key. When a federal appeals court disagreed, state officials appealed to the Supreme Court.

There is a degree of merit, though, to California’s argument. The state legislature certainly has a vested interest in keeping murderers, kidnappers, rapists, and drug dealers locked up for good where they can harm no one else. But is the answer really to lock up all criminals for life, even those convicted of petty theft? No, it is not. The appropriate measure would be to keep the monsters mentioned before behind bars after their first or second offense, without the possibility of parole.

The law is now detaining roughly 7,300 inmates. Of that number, one-third are put away for burglary, theft, or drug possession. None have the possibility of parole.

The California act takes a tough stance on crime and habitual offenders, but it does not uphold the virtue of the Constitution. The three-strikes law strikes out.

Editorial Board:Cavan Reagan, Amber Billings, Ayrel Clark, Charlie Weaver, Rachel Faber Machacha, Zach Calef.