EDITORIAL
California's '3 strikes' needs high court review

We welcome the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to review California's "three strikes" law, and that's not because we think the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was loopy in holding that the law was unconstitutionally applied.

We sympathize with the impatience with repeat criminals expressed by California voters in approving the nation's strictest tough-on-crime law in 1994. Having had a belly full, they sought to draw a line in the sand, introducing a social compact that, they thought, couldn't have been clearer: Screw up once or twice, and there's room for rehabilitation. But three strikes and we've had it with you; you're out of here.

In practice, however, the law has led to too many absurdities, with defendants receiving life sentences for incredibly petty third offenses. It seems plain that the appeals court is right in holding that the law casts too wide a net and imposes overly severe punishment for nonviolent crimes.

We hope the Supreme Court will resist the temptation to put the appeals court in its place; there's a palpable atmosphere of political dogmatics surrounding this case. We're looking for justice tempered by mercy, as always.

The high court may rule in a way that allows California to keep its three strikes law as is, or somewhat altered. For Hawai'i, however, we hope voters and lawmakers will continue to grant judges reasonable discretion in fitting sentences to the crimes they are meant to punish.