Three-strikes law gets high court's scrutiny

So-called three-strikes laws mandate serious punishments -- usually 25 years to life in prison -- for criminals who commit a third felony after being convicted of two previous serious or violent felonies. Twenty-six states and the federal government all have some version of a three-strikes law.

But two California cases are to be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court to see if such laws are unconstitutionally harsh. California is one of those states whose three-strikes law kicks in after two serious felonies no matter what crime was committed the third time, just as long as it's a felony.

As a result, offenses that otherwise might result in misdemeanor charges are prosecuted as felonies in some instances. Examples before the court include third-time offenses of shoplifting videotapes in one case and golf clubs in another.

Other states avoid this issue by making the three-strikes law apply only to three serious felonies. But the high court's ruling could go a long way in establishing the constitutionality of such laws, or it could focus only on how California's law applies in such instances.

Many judges don't like three-strikes laws, because they limit discretion in sentencing. On the other hand, this discretion -- and the disparate sentences being handed out -- is the reason 26 states and the federal government have seen fit to impose the three-strikes laws.