S.C. MUST DEVELOP 'APPETITE' TO RESOLVE PRISON CROWDING

UNFORTUNATELY, OPPOSITION from solicitors and victims' advocates was enough
to kill a promising proposal that could have reformed South Carolina's
approach to incarcerating nonviolent criminals.

The House bill would create two programs aimed at reducing prison
population by monitoring nonviolent offenders out in the community instead.
The reduction in population would be modest in a system that grows by 1,000
inmates a year. But the legislation would signal a significant shift from
the lock 'em up mentality that led to overcrowding.

House Speaker David Wilkins, sponsor of the alternative sentencing bill,
said solicitors and victims oppose it. They want certainty the system will
carry out sentences. They are uncomfortable with giving the option to
change sentences to Corrections, he said.

But this is about nonviolent inmates, not anyone who would be a threat to
society. South Carolina cannot continue to lock so many people up while not
providing the resources needed to safely imprison them. Corrections will
run a deficit - again - this budget year. It lost more than $70 million in
funding over the past four years. As the prison population has risen, the
number of guards and services has plunged. There is little rehabilitation
taking place; prisons are not safe.

Many nonviolent offenders, who make up half of our state's prisoners, could
be better rehabilitated through treatment and alternative incarceration.
Kept in prison, they occupy space and resources needed to house more
dangerous and violent criminals.

The proposed "targeted release" and "alternative placement" programs are
potential solutions.

The targeted release plan would allow Corrections to release nonviolent
inmates serving less than a year into the community before the end of their
term. The inmates would have to meet a curfew, find a job, participate in
educational and counseling programs, abstain from alcohol and drugs and pay
a supervision fee. Officials could send inmates who break rules back to prison.

Under the alternative placement program, Corrections could place nonviolent
criminals serving between one and five years in a specialized institutional
program. After six months, the agency could transfer them to a structured
community program. The inmates would have to follow many of the rules for
those under the targeted release plan as well as face possible electronic
monitoring. The sentencing judge would have to recommend inmates for both
programs.

For now, at least, these programs are dead. Lawmakers might give
Corrections more flexibility in managing "good time," slight reductions in
sentences inmates earn for good behavior. But that will do virtually
nothing to address prison crowding and budget woes.

State leaders must seriously consider some form of alternative sentencing
for nonviolent inmates. Corrections Director Jon Ozmint said he will
continue to push for a remedy. Speaker Wilkins said he understands the
position Corrections is in and wants to help. There just is no "appetite"
for it this year, he said. Senators did not even offer a bill on the matter
as was expected, he said.

At the rate things are going in our prisons, we must develop an appetite
for something, whether it is more funding to house prisoners safely or
alternative sentencing aimed at reducing inmate numbers. Otherwise, we are
headed for disaster as our prisons become more crowded and more dangerous.