Washington ? The Supreme Court said certain repeat offenders may be locked up for long periods for relatively minor crimes, ruling Wednesday that a sentence up to life is not too harsh for a criminal caught swiping three golf clubs.

The court also said a term of 50 years to life was not out of bounds for a small-time thief who shoplifted videotapes from Kmart. The tapes, were worth $153.

Both men were sentenced under California’s toughest-in-the-nation law for repeat criminals, known as three-strikes. By votes of 5-4, the court said the law did not necessarily lead to unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment.

Gary Albert Ewing had more than a dozen prior convictions when a clerk at an El Segundo, Calif., golf shop noticed him trying to make off with golf clubs stuffed down one pant leg. He was convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life in prison. There is no possibility of parole before 25 years.

“Ewing’s sentence is justified by the state’s public-safety interest in incapacitating and deterring recidivist felons, and amply supported by his own long, serious criminal record,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in the main opinion in that case. O’Connor listed Ewing’s earlier convictions, which include theft, battery and burglary.

Like similar laws in 25 other states and the federal government, the California law was intended to shut the revolving prison door for career criminals. The laws typically allow a life prison term or something close to it for someone convicted of a third felony.

In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said the Ewing case was a rare example of a sentence that was so out of proportion to the crime that it was unconstitutional. He was joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Outside California’s three-strikes law, a 25-year prison term is more the norm for someone convicted of first-degree murder, not shoplifting, Breyer wrote.

In other action Wednesday, the court:

l Ruled that states can post sex offenders’ photos and other personal information on the Internet, a step the states say is aimed at protecting people from criminals living nearby. The case was a key first test of “Megan’s law” provisions that are on the books in every state.

l Considered whether library patrons should be able to surf the Internet without government-ordered pornography filters. Justices will decide before July whether Congress can require public libraries to install software to filter out pornography as a condition of receiving federal money.