NO RUSH

By World Editorial Writers 6/4/98

Delay truth-in-sentencing law

Because the Legislature was unable to agree on revisions to Oklahoma's
truth-in-sentencing law, and because time ran out on the recent session
before the law's July 1 implementation could be delayed, Gov. Frank Keating
will call lawmakers into special session this month to deal with the issue.

The best course for the Legislature is to delay the effective date of the
law and then spend the summer and fall deliberating proposed changes. The
law is too important to try to rush a compromise agreement during a two-or
three-week special session.

Truth in sentencing was passed a year ago amid considerable fanfare. Its aim
was to make prison sentences consistent and realistic: Five years or 15
years would mean just that, and juries would no longer give criminals huge
nominal sentences -- sometimes hundreds of years -- just to ensure that they
spent a reasonable time behind bars.

The trade-off was that nominal sentences for certain crimes would be reduced
and that many sentences for serious but "nonviolent" crimes, like burglary,
would be served in community sentencing programs.

But almost immediately after the law was passed, critics, including
sheriffs, district attorneys and victims' groups, began to complain that it
was soft on crime. And local officials realized that the community
sentencing programs would be expensive.

It is inevitable that the law will be amended before it goes into effect.
But there is no general agreement yet on how it should be changed and
opinions vary widely. Legislators must come up with a revised law that
contains reasonable, realistic sentences without boosting the inmate
population to levels that the state cannot afford. Oklahoma already
incarcerates a higher percentage of its citizens than almost any other
state.

Truth in sentencing is great in concept but it is a thorny issue that is
fraught with controversy and subject to missteps that could produce
unexpected and unintended results. There is no need to pass a new law until
there is general agreement among legislators and the various interests
involved that the revisions are sound.

Delaying implementation of the law for a year will allow deliberate
consideration of the necessary changes. A quickie compromise isn't needed.

Checked-by: "Rolf Ernst"