SENTENCING REFORM SAVES

There's nothing like a $3 billion deficit to focus the mind on money-saving
alternatives, or at least we thought.

But while there's been much debate over a few reforms in the way the state
government spends our money -- Bill Bulger, again, seems to have grabbed
most of Beacon Hill's attention -- large areas of state government seem to
be making it through this fiscal crisis without serious study.

Count among the unreformed the Department of Correction, where spending has
risen steadily over the last 12 years along with the prison population. Its
budget is now more than $427 million. Surely there's a way to save money in
that account without putting killers back on the streets.

One way is to look again at the prison population with an eye toward
distinguishing the criminals we are afraid of from those we are mad at. The
criminals we are afraid of -- murderers, rapists, pedophiles and others
convicted of violent acts -- must be locked away. But those we are simply
mad at -- because, say, they were caught in possession of prohibited
substances -- could be punished in a manner that doesn't cost the taxpayers
$40,000 a year for their room and board.

Instead, Massachusetts has done the opposite. The state has legislated
mandatory sentences for those caught violating drug laws, which often keeps
nonviolent drug offenders behind bars longer than those who are a more
direct threat to public safety. Legislative leaders have talked about
sentencing reform for years, but have never managed to pass anything.
Neither the budget approved by the House nor the one proposed by the Senate
Ways and Means Committee encourages sentencing reform.

An amendment proposed by Sen. David Magnani, D-Framingham, does just that.
Magnani's amendment would amend the state's minimum sentencing laws, giving
judges the discretion to release non-violent offenders who have served half
their sentences and let them serve the rest with electronic monitoring
bracelets.

That reform, Magnani estimates, would save $41 million while freeing up
space in overcrowded prisons. His amendment would use $23 million in
savings to restore the program that reimburses school districts for money
lost when a charter school opens.

Restoring the charter school reimbursements, vetoed last year by acting
Gov. Jane Swift, could bring $750,000 or more to Framingham's district
schools. The program is restored in the House budget, but not in the Senate
Ways and Means proposal. Putting that program back in place is in the best
interest of both sides in Framingham's fight over a new charter school, and
we wish Magnani success.

But where the money comes from is as important as where it goes. Tackling
sentencing reform in the midst of a budget debate isn't the best way to
legislate a difficult issue, and Magnani's amendment may be a long shot. If
it doesn't succeed this week, we hope the Legislature will seriously
consider it when work on the budget is completed.