TIME TO REMEDY FLAWS IN TRUTH IN SENTENCING

The Legislature has created a doozy of a Y2K crisis. It has slatedtruth in
sentencing to start this Friday without taking steps toensure the policy
doesn't boomerang.

Thus, the policy now threatens to worsen the problem of prison crowding,
which would lead to:

a) The premature release of truthfully sentenced inmates or b) the
expenditure of a fortune on new prisons or on shipment of inmates to
out-of-state prisons or c) both of the above. In fact, the last is the most
likely outcome; try though many have, no state has yet built itself out of
the prison-crowding problem.

At this late hour, the state can still avert disaster. But doing so would
require the Legislature to stop being dense on crime - a tall order. Here's
what ought to be done:

Gov. Tommy Thompson should call a special session of the Legislature for
next week to clean up the truth-in-sentencing mess. Lawmakers aren't slated
to meet until late January. The sooner they tackle the ramifications of the
new sentencing law, however, the less damage it will do.

At that session, the Legislature should pass a comprehensive strategy for
dealing with prison crowding or, in the alternative, delay the start of
truth in sentencing to give lawmakers time to develop and approve such a
strategy. The Assembly did pass a piece of such a strategy - namely, a
revision of the criminal code - but by itself, that small measure is
insufficient to avert disaster.

Other elements should include a drastic increase in resources for probation,
the expansion of alternatives to prison, the step-up of treatment programs
for drug addiction and other problems and added emphasis on efforts to steer
into productive citizenry children at risk of falling into lives of crime.
Also, lawmakers must clamp down on themselves. Fond of stiffening penalties
- - the reason for prison crowding - they should require that henceforth
proposals to that effect carry cost analyses before being adopted.

Until the Legislature acts, the state's judges themselves could and should
keep truth in sentencing from becoming a farce. They must simply adjust
their sentences to reflect the new math. Under the old math, a judge who
wanted a defendant to stew in prison for 12 years might sentence that person
to 20 years. But under truth-in-sentencing math, a 20-year sentence equals
20 years behind bars. So the judge should simply sentence that person to 12
years.

Yes, that step would require courage. The old system gave judges cover,
making them look sterner than they actually were. The fear is that many
won't adapt to the new math because it would make them look soft on crime,
particularly at election time. But judges must have the gumption to do
what's right while waiting for help from the Legislature.