SMART BETTER THAN TOUGH

One line from an official's inaugural remarks deserves the attention of the
new governor and every other Alabamian because it has huge implications for
the state.

Most of the attention during Monday's inaugurals was focused on Gov. Bob
Riley, and rightly so. However, one line from another official's inaugural
remarks deserves the attention of the new governor and every other
Alabamian because it has huge implications for the state.

The speaker was Bill Pryor, who took the oath Monday for his second term as
attorney general. The line: "We need to stop declaring that we are going to
be tough on crime and instead be smart on crime."

There's a lot for this state to consider in those few words. In trying to
be "tough on crime," a stance many Alabama politicians reflexively adopt
any time an election nears, Alabama has instead often been tough on itself
- -- tough in the sense of imposing on itself heavy costs and seemingly
intractable long-term problems of prison overcrowding. For all that effort
and expense, the Advertiser doubts that Alabamians feel notably safer.

Pryor has been a steadfast proponent of sentencing reform, which is one way
Alabama can start being smart on crime. Some key questions have to be
answered. What kind of punishment do we really want to hand out for
criminal offenses? For offenses deemed deserving of incarceration,
shouldn't we want sentences that will reflect the actual time to be served?
Shouldn't we want -- indeed insist -- that similar offenses carry similar
sentences, regardless of where the offense occurred?

Clearly, Alabama's sentencing system is flawed. Should offenses carry
punishment in broad ranges -- two to 20 years, for example -- when that can
lead to hugely varying sentences for virtually identical crimes?

And shouldn't the sentence reflect the time an individual will serve? If a
10-year sentence really means only three or four years, isn't the
credibility of the court undermined? Wouldn't it make more sense to have
much narrower sentencing ranges and have the sentences mean what judges say
they mean when they hand them down?

Perhaps the ultimate question is the extent to which incarceration should
be used. For violent offenders, there's no doubt about its fitness. But
Alabama now incarcerates thousands of nonviolent offenders who pose no
physical threat to society and who could serve sentences in less expensive
and more productive ways.

Pryor is right. It's time -- long past time, in fact -- to start being
smart on crime.