Iowa State Daily Editorial Board: Tim Davis, Jamey Hansen, Tim Frerking, Chris Mende and Keesia Wirt.

California’s “three strikes and you’re out” rule imposed on U.S. judges has been called “out!” by the Supreme Court.

Last week’s ruling by the nation’s highest court said that judges should not be forced to impose life sentences on repeat offenders if the judge believes the crime to be too harsh.

This ruling basically nullifies California’s 1994 “three strikes” rule, and bodes ill for the other 19 states that currently utilize versions of the “three strikes” law. Also, the Supreme Court’s mandate invited any convict sentenced under this law to ask the sentencing judge for reconsideration.

Under California’s law, certain violent or serious crimes were recognized as “strikes.” Anyone with one “strike”who was then convicted of a new felony was required to be sentenced to at least twice the normal term of imprisonment. Someone with two “strikes” who is found guilty of a third “strike” was then sentenced to 25 years to life.

The central cause of passing the “three strikes” law was that some felt that sentencing judges were too lenient on crime.

The mandatory nature of the law is the basic in the “three strikes” effort. The law ties the hands of judges and can potentially force them to pass down a sentence they may not endorse. If the contention of the supporters of a “three strikes” law is that judges are being too lenient in handing down sentences, that is the issue that must be attacked by the American constituency.

Circumventing the system is not the answer to a potential flaw in the American judicial system. It’s somewhat ironic to attempt to correct a perceived weakness in sentencing judges by basically stripping them of all authority in certain situations.

While the early release of repeat offenders is indeed a valid concern of the citizens of California and other states, hamstringing their judges into making potentially poor sentencing decisions is as big an injustice as those the law was intended to prevent.

Hopefully, in time, the other 19 states will realize the potential injustice of the “three strikes” law and get back to trusting the judicial branch to make the decisions it was created to make.