S.C. NEEDS A NEW SENTENCING OPTION

Throughout the mid-1990s and beyond, as violent crime decreased, some
argued that tough sentencing laws and truth in sentencing laws were
not effective. The sole cause for the drop in crime, they argued, was
a good and growing economy. They were wrong.

Our economy is on the backside of a long downturn; crime rates should
be high and growing. They are not. We have incarcerated more than 2
million people in this country, for longer periods than ever before.
The revolving door for many violent offenders has slowed or stopped,
and we are all safer. However, these results have been purchased at a
great and growing price.

In South Carolina, we now have more than 24,000 inmates in our prison
system. Today we manage 2,500 more offenders than we did three years
ago. Unfortunately, our Corrections Department has not been provided
with the resources required to attend to our growing inmate
population. We will finish this year with 1,100 more inmates than last
year's ending count.

We have responded to this problem by undertaking a series of budget
reduction efforts and by finding more efficiency. We are now the
second-most-efficient prison system in the nation in terms of spending
per inmate, allocating about $12,300 per year. Even so, corrections in
South Carolina is a $300 million proposition.

It is both necessary and appropriate that our state make attempts to
align available resources with the number of inmates that we must
house and manage. To do so, certain legislative changes are in order.
We cannot "do nothing" on the legislative front and expect to have
different results. During the next legislative session, this
administration will propose legislation that will create new
sentencing alternatives for nonviolent offenders.

These sentencing alternatives would begin with a recommendation by the
sentencing judge. The new legislation would allow nonviolent offenders
to be screened and managed for an appropriate length of time at our
institutions. Then, inmates would be placed in the community under
appropriate levels of supervision. This approach has worked in South
Carolina for years in our youthful offender and shock incarceration
programs.

Judicial recommendation is important because it allows for the input
of victims, law enforcement, solicitors, defendants and attorneys. A
variety of supervision strategies such as electronic monitoring, home
detention, intensive supervision or day reporting could be used to
monitor the inmates who advance in the program.

These sentencing alternatives would focus on two groups of nonviolent
offenders: those with sentences of one year or less and those with
sentences of one year to five years.

For offenders with sentences of less than one year, Corrections would
admit, screen and process the inmates. The Corrections Department
would develop an appropriate transition and community supervision
plan, identify appropriate requirements and conditions to be placed on
the offender, and allow the offender to change his location to the
community after service of 90 days in a "real prison" setting.

For nonviolent offenders with sentences of between one and five years,
Corrections would develop a special six-month program that would
address the factors that contribute to their criminal behavior
(substance abuse, cognitive skills, employment issues, mental health
needs, etc.). If the offender successfully completes this program then
a community re-entry and supervision plan would be developed.

Focusing our energies on moving appropriate nonviolent offenders to
more specific community placements would allow us to devote the
majority of our institutional resources to the more violent or
dangerous individuals who require extended periods of incarceration.
About 50 percent of our inmate population is made up of violent
offenders, and a growing percentage (presently 30 percent) of our
population is made up of inmates sentenced under the
truth-in-sentencing laws. We must have adequate resources to deal with
these long-term criminal offenders.

Another unique aspect of this proposal is that it will not further
clog an already-overburdened judicial system. As Corrections
Department inmates, offenders violating the conditions of these lower
levels of incarceration could be immediately moved back to prison.
They would have a disciplinary hearing and they would continue to have
access to the courts.

This immediate carrot-and-stick approach has been successful in drug
courts across the state. This would be an entirely new idea in
sentencing, giving offenders a "real prison" experience first, while
offering an opportunity to advance to an alternative form of
incarceration.

On behalf of Gov. Mark Sanford, House Speaker David Wilkins and Sen.
Mike Fair have agreed to sponsor legislation to accomplish these
objectives. Many other Democrats and Republicans have expressed an
interest in helping to ensure this legislation is passed.

This is an important first step, but it is not a quick fix to our
corrections funding crisis. The enactment of this legislation should
result in a gradual, but slight reduction in the growth of our inmate
population in a manner consistent with public safety
considerations.