When Californian’s first approved the hardnosed “three-strikes” law in 1994, the decision was emblematic of the state’s attitude toward criminal justice: Lock away the scoundrels, and throw away the key.

Now a decade wiser, there is little evidence that the 25-years-to-life for repeat offenders has done much to deter crime, though it has redirected a growing portion of state funds away from higher education into the state’s correctional system. While the state saw its crime rates drop in the 1990s, so did others that had no three-strikes statutes. On the other hand, some scholarly work suggests that the law has only added to the burden of the judicial system, with more third-timers forgoing plea agreements and demanding a trial.

In the coming months, Californians will have a chance to re-examine the law; earlier this month, a coalition that includes prosecutors — such as the state’s largest district attorney’s office — called for changes to the concept. College students, whose tuition fees are indirectly at stake, should be on the forefront of this debate. Since higher education and prison funds come out of the same money pool, lowering prison costs will free up more funds for schools.

As for the current reform proposal, which would limit the extended prison sentences for third-time offenders only to those whose last crime is “violent” or “serious,” much work still remains to be done (including a definition of what qualifies as a violent or serious crime). But it is certainly a good start.

Like policies dealing with illegal immigration, public debate over crime has often lacked logical reasoning and relied more on appeals to raw emotion and fear; similar paranoia gave birth to three strikes a decade ago. California can and should do better this time around.