SENTENCING SMARTS: SLEW OF GOOD REASONS TO KEEP DRUG ADDICTS OUT OF PRISON

There is probably never a time when state legislators ought to make laws to
reduce prison time for convicted felons simply to make room in Texas
lockups. But there are at least a handful of excellent reasons to keep
nonviolent, first-time offenders out of prison, which would have the added
benefit of mitigating Texas' burgeoning prison crowding problem.

Texas lawmakers by tradition and political necessity are tough on criminals,
with many touting measures they've supported or initiated to ensure that
more criminals are locked up for longer periods. But, in the current
legislative session, there are several bills pending that do not fit that
pattern but are worth serious consideration.

Among them is HB 2624 and the identical HB 2626, which would require that
criminals convicted of a misdemeanor or felony who are serving a probated
sentence would be released under current early release statutes from
completing their sentence if their probation history shows successful
completion of a certain amount of time. The law would allow a judge and
probation officials to nix an early release when circumstances warrant.

Another bill, HB 2316, would change possession of less than a gram of a
controlled substance from a felony to a misdemeanor. Bill supporters point
out that less than one gram is an amount tinier than the contents of a
sweetner packet. The legislation would reduce lockup time, fines and maximum
probation terms for such crimes.

A similar bill, HB 715 would reduce possession of trace amounts of marijuana
from a class B misdemeanor to a class C misdemeanor, eliminating jail
sentences altogether (although a police officer could still make an initial
arrest) and prescribing a $500 fine.

HB 2668 would keep first-time possessors of less than one gram out of
detention and put them into drug treatment. Second-time offenders would be
allowed this option. The crime would continue to be charged as a felony. It
would require the first-timers conviction to be set aside and allow the
second-timers' to be set aside, which is not the same as an expunction that
essentially hides such records from public view. In fact, questions remain
about what exactly "setting aside" a conviction would mean under this
proposal.

Still another bill would prevent convicts who commit a "technical" parole
violation -- not checking in on time or losing a job, as opposed to
committing a new crime -- from being sent back to prison to complete their
full sentence. Instead, a technical violator would be reincarcerated for a
period of six months to two years, sending a message that violations are
serious while maintaining a reasonable check on the growth of the prison
population.

These bills do more than conserve prison space and save taxpayer dollars.
They have the potential to add some sanity to a criminal justice system that
often locks up people who need more treatment than punishment and that can
turn a one-time loser into a lifelong failure. People who otherwise could be
productive members of society are spending years away from their children,
and bearing the burden to employment, voting and housing of a permanent
"felon" label. For many, a completed sentence doesn't mean turning over a
new leaf but embarking on new crimes for want of an alternative.

That's not good for families, general productivity or, for that matter,
public safety.