State lawmakers have tempered a politically popular "three strikes" criminal sentencing law — but the bill still falls short.

If a "three-strikes-and-you're-out" law makes any sense, it should be constructed as a tool a judge can use in sentencing, not as a mandatory policy. As it now stands, the bill is too arbitrary, could be harmful in some cases and would tend to erode confidence in the justice system.

The original idea was straightforward: If you commit three felonies, you are sent away, effectively, for life.

Critics in other jurisdictions have pointed out that these measures tie the hands of judges and sometimes send people to prison for what otherwise would be, in context, a relatively minor crime.

In an effort to meet these concerns, lawmakers restricted the three-strikes penalty to those who commit three "violent" crimes.

And for purposes of this bill, they narrow the definition of "violent" to eliminate burglary and other property crimes, a change law enforcement opposes.

These are improvements, but the measure is still far too arbitrary and restrictive. It's far better to give judges this sentencing tool as an option. Only a trial judge has all the facts pertinent to the case to determine what is the appropriate sanction.

In fact, the latest draft shoots itself in the foot on this issue. It forces judges to impose this sentence, but then gives an out to prosecutors who can ask the court for a lesser sentence if the defendant cooperates with law enforcement on another case.

Call it the "snitch" loophole.

If the purpose here is to protect society by sending repeat violent offenders away forever, then this exemption makes no sense.

A better choice would be to put this law on the books in a cogent way that allows judges to decide when it would be imposed.