FAIR AND THRIFTY

In an effort to protect better its citizenry from the threat of crime,
North Carolina and other states have established mandatory minimum
sentences for habitual felons.

The idea seems fair and practicable at first glance: It guarantees that
repeat offenders will be put away behind bars for longer periods of time,
keeping such individuals out of public life where their consistent illegal
actions could harm others.

As pointed out by advocates of sentencing reform Tuesday, however,
mandatory minimums place an excessive burden on the state while doling out
punishment that often does not fit the crime.

Reforming the state's policy for repeat offenders, while lessening
sentences for small-time criminals, would provide state officials with more
than $1 billion to help suffering state programs.

Repeat offenders are sentenced to terms typically reserved for violent
crimes no matter the nature of the offense.

The problem lies in the fact that 87 percent of those who fall under the
habitual label are serving time for nonviolent crimes, mostly dealing with
drugs, theft and property damage.

If the state were to take the advice of the reformers and enact a state
commission proposal from two years ago, the nonviolent offenders would not
face the mandatory minimum sentences.

Average sentences would change from about five to nine years in prison, and
punishment for violent crimes would not be altered.

The N.C. General Assembly would not put others in danger by adopting the
reforms and would alleviate many of the state's budget woes at the same time.

The costs of maintaining correctional facilities are tremendous and are
exacerbated by the longer sentences created by the habitual offender
requirements.

North Carolina spends approximately $21,000 every year to house each inmate
in prison.

Last year, plans were approved for three new prisons at a cost of $234
million. Given the massive price tag associated with building prisons, the
state can expect to spend much more as time progresses.

The money certainly could be put to better use. North Carolina's tight
budget of the past few years has meant less spending on many of the
programs necessary to make life better in the state.

Higher education in particular has not been adequately funded, a deficiency
that directly affects students in the form of tuition hikes.

Taxpayer money that is being spent on prisons and inmates could be budgeted
for education, health care and transportation.

If the reform proposals were enacted, the shorter sentences and less
substantial prison population would allow a dramatic reduction in
correctional spending.

It is estimated that the reforms would prevent North Carolina from having
to build at least five prisons during the next ten years, saving the state
a minimum of $1.3 billion.

The state must evaluate its priorities and consider the sentencing reforms.

Are we as a society better off by imprisoning someone with three
convictions of drug possession for a longer sentence than many violent
criminals receive?

Are we better off stuffing an ever-expanding prison system to the gills
while not adequately funding the social programs that directly improve lives?

For the sake of higher priorities and practical government, the General
Assembly must reform the state's sentencing policy.