DO THE MATH

Lawmakers Must Rethink Penalties For Property Crimes

Alabamians are already paying a huge price for their leaders' shortsighted
efforts to out-tough each other on crime. And the cost is about to rise
dramatically.

State prisons are housing twice the number of inmates they were built to
hold and are being guarded by a corrections staff half the size found in
other states. Courts are breathing down the Department of Corrections'
neck, demanding it address these dangerously overcrowded and understaffed
prisons. Not only is the state amassing fines and legal expenses, it's
having to pay to ship inmates out of state and looking long term at a
billion-dollar tab to build and staff new prisons.

Against that backdrop, you'd think Alabama's legislators who have
capitalized on get-tough crime measures through the years would realize
it's time to get real. But, alas, no.

The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday voted down a measure that would
have reduced the number of people going to prison for property crimes. The
bill would have raised the threshold for felony theft from $250 to $500.

This would raise the felony cutoff to the same level as Georgia and
Tennessee, and would be a sensible adjustment in light of inflation, even
if prisons weren't in crisis.

But the committee voted 6-5 against it. All supporters were Democrats. All
opponents except one were Republicans. No votes included Cam Ward of
Alabaster and Albert Morton of Birmingham, who said criminals would steal
more if the threshold were raised. (As if thieves are standing there, doing
the arithmetic as they pilfer.)

The partisan breakdown might suggest this bill is some kind of
bleeding-heart liberal plan to free the oppressed prisoners. Hardly. One of
its most impassioned backers is Republican Attorney General Bill Pryor, who
can hardly be viewed as soft on crime.

Pryor told the committee that Alabama should reserve expensive jail space
for violent, dangerous and repeat criminals not drug and property
offenders. He pointed out that Alabama has the nation's fifth-highest
incarceration rate and that it cannot sustain such a growing prison
population without going to great expense or inviting costly court
interventions.

"Please exercise the leadership to avoid that," Pryor urged lawmakers.

Legislators should have listened to Pryor, based on costs and common sense.
If for no other reason, it is far better to deal with nonviolent offenders
in the community, away from the more dangerous criminal elements in prison.

House sponsor Marcel Black, D-Tuscumbia, said he hopes to resurrect the
measure during this legislative session. Let's hope he does and that the
next time, legislators will do the math before dusting off their
tough-on-crime spiels. Tough on crime shouldn't mean dumb on crime.

Sure, legislators can hold the line on $250 but not without costing state
taxpayers billions of dollars in the long run.