A FRESH LOOK AT DRUG LAWS

But Reducing Possession Penalties Alone Wouldn't Uncrowd Prisons.

Reducing sentences for some drug crimes wouldn't solve the problem of
prison overcrowding, but it's worth investigating. The real answer lies in
swallowing hard and paying the cost of the long sentences for more
dangerous crimes to protect society.

Easing up on penalties for drug possession is hardly a novel suggestion for
reducing prison populations. What's different now is that the leaders of
the Indiana Senate and the House of Representatives agree that the time has
come for a new look at drug laws.

The Associated Press reports that Democratic House Speaker Pat Bauer and
Republican Senate President Pro Tem Bob Garton agree the Legislature may
need to change laws that sometimes require lengthy prison sentences for
possession of relatively small amounts of illegal drugs.

"It may be time to revisit what the rush to judgment was starting about a
decade ago," Bauer told the AP, referring to harsher drug penalties enacted
in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

We agree that confining fewer drug users in prison would be a step toward
making prison supply fit the population. But it's impossible to know how
big a step that would be.

The Indiana Department of Correction reports that 19.3 percent of its adult
inmates have controlled-substance crimes as their most serious offenses.
But it doesn't break that figure down into those convicted of possession
and those convicted of dealing. Nor does it divide that population
according to what drugs they were convicted of selling or possessing. Even
if all these inmates were sprung from state prisons tomorrow, the
facilities still wouldn't have enough room.

Gov. Joe Kernan said this week that state prisons have room for about
16,000 prisoners, but they currently house almost 23,000. Removing more
than 4,000 prisoners who are there for drug crimes would still leave the
state well over capacity.

Here are two places for the state to reconsider drug-crime punishments:

* Draw a sharper distinction between possession and dealing. It would be a
bold and controversial move, but the state could say that drug possession
alone doesn't warrant a cot in the penitentiary.

The state could refer such prisoners back to treatment programs or other
alternative sentences in their home communities. Or, if the offenders' home
counties wanted these users locked up, those counties could foot the bills
to keep them in county jails.

* Punish drug dealers more severely if they actually sell to minors. But
rethink the elaborate framework of geographic restrictions that snare some
drug users in much harsher penalties. The law calls for much stricter
penalties, even in simple drug-possession cases, if the offenders are
within 1,000 feet of a public school or park.

How big a difference does it make? Get caught with three grams or more of
cocaine, and it's a class C felony, with a standard sentence of four years
in prison. Get caught with the same amount of cocaine within 1,000 feet of
a park, even in your own home, and it's a class A felony, with a standard
sentence of 30 years.

Enacting such differential penalties had little to do with protecting
children from drugs and everything to do with legislators crowing about
their toughness.

Obviously, springing the least risky echelon of pot-smokers from state
prisons won't be enough. And, as Allen County Prosecutor Karen Richards
points out, the state already doesn't house Class D felony offenders, such
as those caught dealing moderate amounts of marijuana or possessing small
amounts of cocaine.

She says that tweaking drug penalties wouldn't be enough to make too few
prisons accommodate too many prisoners. The real answer is building more
prisons and funding two recently completed but unstaffed state prisons, she
said.

We strongly support a fresh look at drug penalties, but it's obvious that
the biggest part of solving prison crowding will be funding more prisons.
And, in general, long prison sentences are a sensible, if quite costly, use
of state funds.

When convicted burglars, robbers, rapists and child abusers are in prison,
there are fewer potential criminals on the streets. In fact, the role of
long prison sentences in reducing crime isn't given enough credit for
generally flat or declining crime rates.

Paying the price for making criminals pay is another priority too pressing
for the General Assembly to let it slide ignored through another session.