A CAPTIVE SYSTEM

Before Building More Prisons, North Carolina Ought To Weigh The Benefits Of
Preventing More Crimes By Treating Drug Addiction

North Carolina needs growth industries, but here's one we'd rather we
hadn't gotten stuck with -- prison construction. With the General
Assembly's approval, three new prisons are being built and three more are
in the pipeline. Yet for all the expense involved, the N.C. Sentencing and
Policy Advisory Commission is predicting that the inmate population will
soon outstrip the amount of available prison space again. Using methods
like double-bunking to to raise the number of prisoners that could be
accommodated, as some legislators suggest, would create explosive tensions
that risk harm to staff and inmates alike. That's unacceptable. So, the
fundamental choice facing state leaders within five years is to reduce the
number of inmates or to increase the amount of space for housing them.

While some combination of the two may be needed, building more prisons is
the less appealing choice, mainly because of the expense (the construction
cost of a 1,000-bed maximum-security prison typically runs around $80
million). With an eye toward bringing prison populations down, a more
concentrated effort to prevent crimes committed by drug addicts ought to be
considered first.

In a new report, the sentencing commission cites increased convictions this
year for drug trafficking and habitual criminal behavior of 5 percent and
19 percent, respectively, in raising the projected need for prison space.
The pattern follows a 20 percent increase in murder, robbery and drug
trafficking convictions last year. At those rates, the state would lack
space for 2,000 inmates by 2008.

Among the commission's ideas for heading off prison crowding are shorter
sentences for some repeat offenders. Those changes -- in addition to
shortening violent offenders' minimum prison term and increasing their
supervision upon release -- could eliminate the need for nearly 5,000 beds
over a decade.

Of course, public safety calls for sentences that will keep criminals
locked up while they pose a realistic threat of violence. And as
punishment, prison time has proven to be an effective deterrent to white
collar crime.

Most drug offenders -- even those addicts who earn money to buy drugs by
selling them -- don't fit the description of violent criminals. Nor is the
threat of prison time likely to deter them from pursuing powerful
chemicals. In fact, studies show that drug offenders who receive addiction
treatment are re-arrested far less often than those who served prison
terms. It's also well known that much property crime is carried out by drug
users who need money to feed their habit.

In that light, it defies common sense to build more prisons largely to hold
drug offenders while cutting off funds for programs that have been shown to
help them shake their addictions. But that's just what North Carolina has done.

For example, even while paying to bring new prisons on line, state leaders
have been drastically cutting back Wake County's Day Incarceration Center
since 2000 and last year actually let the successful program for addicts
shut down for three months. During its first seven years, the center saw
nearly 200 drug offenders change their behavior and acquire credentials
that make them employable. Chances are they won't be taking up any more
prison space.

If this root cause of crime were attacked more aggressively, reduced
sentences for some offenses would be more palatable. Specifically,
decision-makers ought to analyze the effect of treating more drug offenders
on the need for prison space. A more informed choice of prison-capacity
options surely would be the result.