CUTTING PRISON COSTS

Some Other Ways To Skin A Cat

Former Gov. Henry Bellmon used to say that if a politician stood in
the middle of the road long enough eventually he'd get hit from both
sides.

That's exactly the situation many state lawmakers found themselves in
earlier this year when they eyed reducing corrections spending.

No one wanted to appear soft on crime but most recognized that the
time is long overdue to cauterize spending, which is bleeding the
state dry. In 12 years, appropriations to the Department of
Corrections rose a staggering 203 percent and the prison population
doubled to 22,000 inmates.

By comparison, K-12 education spending rose by 142 percent and mental
health expenditures grew by only 34 percent in the same period. While
prison appropriations were surging and the prison population was bur
geoning, the state crime rate remained relatively stable, even
declining recently.

So, the question the Legislature had to ask itself was who was being
punished more, criminals or taxpayers?

In the end, members approved Senate Bill 397, a measure overhauling
the state criminal justice system and aimed at providing for a safer
state that spends its prison dollars more wisely.

As with most things in politics, the bill, authored by Senate
President Pro Tempore Stratton Taylor, D-Clare more, and House
Minority leader Fred Morgan, R-Oklahoma City, was a product of
compromise. Hardly soft on crime, it:

- -- Increased the number of violent crimes that carry mandatory prison
sentences. This means that more violent offenders will serve no less
that 85 percent of their sentences and that Oklahoma will be eligible
for an additional $4 million in federal funds. In effect the bill
establishes de facto truth in sentencing for certain crimes.

- -- Abolished a controversial early-release law the governor despised
and wouldn't use.

- -- Lowered the blood alcohol content for drunk driving from .10 to
.08, a measure not popular with the powerful restaurant and bar lobby
but which follows a national trend and which entitles the state to $2
million in additional federal highway funds.

- -- Allows release of ailing inmates whose medical condition renders
them no longer a threat to public safety. Inmates would be released
to family members or care facilities instead of the state continuing
to pick up the tab for treatment.

What the legislation tries to do, among other things, said Sen. Dick
Wilkerson, D-Atwood, is to focus prison spending on people "we're
afraid of as opposed to those we're just aggravated with.

"This bill was an attempt to reform the system," Wilkerson, a strong
voice in the legislation, said. "If I wasn't optimistic about it I
wouldn't do this. I think we've done good work and there's going to
be some positive aspects."

Wilkerson, a former Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation agent,
said Oklahomans need to move away from a mentality of thinking all
crime is alike and the only solution to crime is locking people up.

"There are people out there who dedicate their lives hurting people.
We need to take those predators and lock them up. But we should spend
as little money on the rest of these people as we can," he said.

And that might mean punishing some nonviolent offenders by other
means than prison.

"What has happened is that we have evolved into trying to solve
social problems with punishment. What we tend to do is pass laws for
public therapy, so we can beat our chests and say we're locking up
all the bad guys. We use the word crime generically. The majority of
crime is nonviolent but we make decisions with the mental picture of
the multiple murderer and general bad guy in mind. "Crime isn't the
same. There are differences between the irresponsible person who
writes hot checks or steals your lawnmower and someone who hurts your
child, someone who sticks a gun in your face, someone who would kill
your mom and dad."

To offset any increase in inmates because of the tougher provisions
in the bill, lawmakers also took a hard look at what was causing an
explosion in inmate numbers. The culprit, at least in part, appeared
to be outmoded criminal statutes, which included one of the lowest
felony limits -- $50 -- on property crimes in the nation.

Last year, 300 people were sentenced to prison on felony convictions
for embezzlement or bogus checks. Records show that only 15 percent
of those crimes involved amounts greater than $500. Despite
opposition from retailers, lawmakers raised the felony limit for only
the second time since statehood -- to $500. Under SB 397, offenders
with cases involving less than that amount now will face county jail
time and/or fines. They also will have to make restitution and pay
fees to the victim and district attorney's office.

The change saves taxpayers the $15,000 a year it would cost to house
an inmate. It also forces small-time property crime offenders to be
more responsible for their conduct.

New diversion and restitution programs could have a big impact by
giving DAs more flexibility to help make victims whole while holding
offenders accountable.

The new law requires each DA to create a program that allows
diversion of certain property crimes from criminal court and to
monitor payments instead. Before making a decision on what happens to
an offender, the prosecutor can consider a variety of factors,
including the victim's wishes, the offender's prior record and the
nature of the crime. Prosecution can be deferred for up to two years,
depending on an offender's willingness to comply with rules

"If someone steals your chainsaw, would you rather see him locked up
or would you rather have him out earning money so he can pay you for
the equivalent of three chainsaws? At the same time he's paying you
back he would have to feed his kids, pay his bills. The kids wouldn't
be on welfare because's dad's in the pen.

"A lot of times these habitual offenders are nuisances more than
anything," Wilkerson said. But if a hot-check writer racked up three
felony convictions he faced a mandatory 20- year sentence. "Then we
were stuck with them," Wilkerson said.

It makes a difference when DAs are able to sit down with the offender
and say: "I've talked to the victim and this is what I want you to
do. I want you to pay back three times what you owe the victim and to
pay the fees. I want you to hold a job. I want you to pay your child
support. If you have any violations, I'm going to move to revoke your
suspended or deferred sentence."

SB 397 isn't perfect and may not go far enough in curbing prison
costs. But at least it's a step toward getting to the bottom of
out-of-control prison spending, which shot up from $200 million to
$398 million in three years year. These reforms might just lead us to
ask ourselves less often the question of who's punishing whom.