In a deplorable 5-to-4 ruling last year, the United States Supreme Court rejected a constitutional challenge to the law. It refused to see anything cruel and unusual about sentences of 25 years without parole for a man who stole three golf clubs from a pro shop and 50 years for another man who stole children's videotapes from a Kmart store. The court's myopia effectively tossed the responsibility back to California voters because, as a practical matter, the State Legislature lacks the political will to act.

While not a perfect fix, the new initiative, Proposition 66, would at least restrict third-strike treatment to serious and violent felons. Repeat offenders convicted of new crimes like pinching videotapes could still get longer sentences, but no longer life behind bars. Disappointingly, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes the reform, arguing, even in the absence of convincing evidence, that approval would flood California streets with violent criminals.

Voters would achieve at least two positive things by approving Proposition 66: fairer sentences, and big savings off the state's bloated bill for the long-term incarceration of the wrong people.