TOUGH SENTENCES MAKE STATE, NATION SAFER

I fear that Kentuckians are about to repeat the horrible mistake we
made when we stopped sending criminals to prison in the 1960s and '70s.

It has taken law enforcement 20 years to bring the crime rate back
down, but either we did not learn our lesson or today's criminal
justice policy-makers don't rank the public's safety and security as a
priority.

Lt. Gov. Steve Pence and state Office of Drug Control Policy appear to
be seeking support for incarcerating fewer people who commit crimes
because they are drug addicts. And Robert Lawson, a longtime
University of Kentucky law professor who has studied the prison
population rates in Kentucky over the past 30 years, says we are
incarcerating too many convicted criminals.

Lawson says that "some meaningful reduction in the prison population
. would begin to sound a necessary warning that there are limits
beyond which the state should not go in its efforts to protect the
public against crime."

Should we say that there are limits to the state's efforts to protect
the public against crime?

Undoubtedly, there will be an effort to persuade the governor and
legislature to incarcerate fewer convicted felons. Under Kentucky's
sentencing laws, very few first-time convicted felons are sent to
prison -- especially first-time drug offenders. They are typically
offered drug treatment rather than incarceration, and I can't disagree
with that.

However, 94 percent of the inmates in U.S. prisons are violent and
repeat offenders. They constitute the small percentage of criminals
who commit the vast majority of crimes.

Before elected leaders decide to retreat from protecting the public
from crime, they should closely examine America's criminal justice
history since the 1960s: a story of two eras and the major changes
that divide them.

The first era began in 1960 and ended in the mid-to-late 1970s. During
that time, policy-makers increasingly questioned the wisdom and
morality of incarcerating criminals. Crime policy was driv-en by the
notion that society, not the individual, was somehow responsible for
criminal conduct. Addressing the root causes of crime -- unemployment,
poor education and inadequate diet -- was seen as the best strategy.

So the criminal justice system relied less on punishment and more on
social programs designed to alleviate the causes and to rehabilitate
criminals.

In 1960, just under 3.4 million crimes -- 290,000 of them violent --
were reported in America. The chance of being a crime victim was 1 in
53. The chance of being a victim of a violent crime was 1 in 622.

By 1970, violent crime had increased by more than 250 percent. The
chance of being a crime victim increased to 1 in 25, and the chance of
being a victim of a violent crime was 1 in 276. Throughout the '70s,
the anti-punishment philosophy prevailed.

By 1980, America had become better educated, better fed and better
housed, but it also was a far more dangerous place to live. The chance
of being the victim of a violent crime was 1 in 168. There were 13.4
million reported crimes -- 1 in 10 of them violent. Fear made people
alter their lives. Social order had practically collapsed.

The public was finally fed up and demanded protection from crime and
criminals. State legislatures throughout America responded with
get-tough crime bills that imposed mandatory prison terms for violent
and persistent felony offenders. Criminals were sent to prison.

The change from social programs back to punishment and incarceration
worked. The crime rate slowed, then began dropping. By 1990, it had
returned to pre-1980 numbers and has continued to drop since.

We want all criminals to be rehabilitated and become good citizens and
contributors to their communities when they return to society. And
everyone hopes prisoners take advantage of drug treatment and job
training in and out of penal institutions.

But citizens' safety and security must always come first.

History has shown that leniency results in unrelenting increases in
crime and that punishment lowers crime rates.

Those who would eliminate punishment and incarceration and return to a
social service response or even put a price tag on Kentuckians' safety
must bear the enormous moral burden of the injuries, deaths and losses
of those who will become victims of the criminals left on our streets.