FAIR SENTENCING LAW COSTLY BUT A SUCCESS

It's been 10 years since North Carolina restored public confidence by
replacing a revolving-door prison system with truth in sentencing.
Victims, offenders and the public now know that a 10-year prison term
means just that. No parole or early release. Commit the crime and do
the time.

But a decade of getting tough on crime has had a hefty price tag. A
rapidly growing prison population means building more costly
correctional facilities. On average, the state spends at least $21,000
annually to house each prisoner. And since sentencing reform, the
prison population has ballooned from 20,000 to 35,000.

Incarceration costs, however, must be weighed against a declining
crime rate and fairer sentences. Putting violent criminals behind bars
for long stretches makes communities safer. Over the long haul,
tougher sentencing effectively has deterred crime.

Before reform, offenders served less than 20 percent of their
sentences. Prisons were little more than crime schools for young
inmates. But times have changed. Criminals no longer are back on the
streets in just a few months. In fact, only those state prisoners
convicted before 1994 are eligible for parole. With few exceptions,
full sentences are served.

In some ways, prisoners themselves have benefited from the changes.
Structured sentencing is fairer. While dangerous criminals are kept in
prison longer, nonviolent offenders get out more quickly. Judges, who
are required to use a sentencing grid for specific crimes, have less
leeway. They must take into consideration a defendant's criminal
history. Racial and gender biases that once led to glaring injustices
have all but disappeared.

Nonetheless, this enlightened approach still should be a work in
progress. Considering the costs of easing prison overcrowding, the
legislature periodically should re-examine and update sentencing
guidelines. So far, suggestions from a state advisory committee have
been ignored.

One area of concern is how best to deal with habitual offenders, many
of whom are locked up for long terms. Because repeat offenses landed
them behind bars, their sentences often are out of sync with the
crimes themselves. Repeaters who commit violent crimes don't deserve a
break, but many are guilty of lesser drug-possession violations.
Rehabilitation suits them better than lengthy incarceration.

Requiring that maximum sentences be served isn't an easy choice. An
aging prison population with little hope of ever being free guarantees
space and discipline problems.

Ultimately, we must decide if thousands of prisoners should remain
behind bars even when they don't present a safety risk. But the
balance sheet overall shows that slamming shut the revolving doors in
our prisons works. Our state is a safer place even if it comes at a
heavy price.