SHRINKING OUR JAIL POPULATION IS A CHALLENGE

When Charlotte County commissioners approved a $28 million expansion
of the county jail it presented only a temporary solution to the
problem of overcrowding. Only when the state and county rethink how
they deal with less violent criminals will the problem really be solved.

The current jail was built to house 528 inmates. Within a year of
opening there were more than 300 being held and today that number
reaches capacity more often than not. Capacity, however, might mean as
few as 485 prisoners because there are so many that must be housed in
a cell of their own. Those inmates, most of them mentally ill or
exceptionally violent, take up space that could be allotted to others.

A .6 mill tax increase will help pay for the expansion project. When
it is completed, the new facility will nearly double the size of the
jail and include 80 cells for mentally ill or high security prisoners.
That is a much-needed improvement.

We can only wonder, however, how long it will be -- given Charlotte
County's growth -- before that number is insufficient.

There are a couple of solutions that would make a real impact on
overcrowded penal facilities. The first would be one we have too often
called for -- the reopening of G. Pierce Wood mental hospital in
Arcadia. It is an argument that falls on deaf ears although the
numbers -- 344 inmates at the county jail this past year were
diagnosed with a mental disorder -- point to the closure of that
facility directly affecting the jail population. On top of those 344
inmates, another 309 were assessed for a problem; 124 were on direct
observation as "suicide risks" and 606 were sent for mental health
counseling.

Another step, although not popular with everyone, would be to cut down
on the number of petty criminals who are housed by taxpayers. The
state's justice council should look at different techniques that could
keep track of, and punish, nonviolent criminals without putting them
behind bars.

Those possible alternatives would include in-house detention and
electronic monitoring.

Granted, there are risks involved. Criminals under those types of
restrictions can cheat. They can leave their home or they can
sometimes find ways to fool electronic monitors. That is why we
emphasize only nonviolent, petty criminals should be eligible for this
type of punishment.

A first or second-time drug offender -- a user, not a significant
dealer -- or someone with a number of traffic violations, might be
considered for these types of restrictions.

There will surely be differing opinions on this approach. We see no
other alternatives to relieving crowded jails and the huge tax burden
they put on the back of property owners.