KEEPING VIOLENT OFFENDERS LOCKED UP SHOULD REMAIN A PRIORITY

As the clock wound down on the 2009 session of the General Assembly,
lawmakers approved a bill cutting the length of sentences for a
number of criminals serving in state prisons, including some put
there for committing violent felonies.

The change was aimed at reducing prison crowding, a
not-so-insignificant issue during a time when tight budgets are
resulting in the state closing a number of smaller prisons and
transferring inmates to larger and more efficient facilities. It's
important to note that the closures will result in inmates being
double-bunked in some prisons.

With the states prison population hovering around 41,000 and the
average cost of supervising a prisoner totaling $27,911 per year,
it's easy to see how lawmakers want to take a hard look at the
possibilities of changing the sentencing guidelines in order to save
taxpayers some money.

North Carolina's overall population continues to increase. Included
in that increase are a proportionate number of those who run afoul of the law.

Critics question the wisdom in releasing prisoners, with recidivism
rates being high. With that in mind, we suggest that lawmakers
undertake an effort to make those who commit violent crimes and are a
danger to the public serve their time while reducing or finding
alternative sentencing for those who are non-violent.

According to the Department of Correction Web site, there were 3,444
people serving time in North Carolina prisons on June 30 for
non-trafficking drug charges. There were 5,067 behind bars on
habitual felon charges and another 719 serving time for non-DWI
traffic offenses.

Incarcerating those prisoners costs the state $257.6 million a year.
Wouldn't the state be safer if it focused on keeping hardened,
violent criminals behind bars while making alternative provisions for
non-violent offenders?

Those who kill, rob, rape and severely injure others have violated
their victims and deserve to be locked away from the general public,
both as a disciplinary measure and as a means of keeping them from
harming us again. Non-violent offenders, however, are not in the same category.

Lawmakers and sentencing officials would do well to take a look at
such changes. Those efforts could lead to a safer society by making
sure those who would do us harm remain behind bars. And it could lead
to taxpayer savings by finding less-expensive ways for the judicial
system to handle those who are not violent.