CRIME, PUNISHMENT

Neither Pays, And They're Breaking Our Bank

Is there anyone out there whose childhood didn't include liberal sprinklings
of the adage, "Crime doesn't pay"? We've learned after the financial
skyrocket of the '90s, of course, that some big, bold white-collar crimes
did pay, but those days are mostly gone and many of the loopholes are welded
shut.

After several decades of a lock-'em-up-and-toss-the-key binge, most
Americans are learning a corollary: Incarceration doesn't pay, either. In
most states, the cost of punishment threatens to exceed the cost of the
crime. Our prisons are filled to bursting - we lead the world in the
percentage of our populace behind bars. With a steady stream of new
prisoners, coming from courts bound by tough mandatory-sentencing laws, most
states are shell-shocked by the looming costs of even more prisons. Many are
looking for a way out.

And why shouldn't they? There is plenty of evidence that harsh mandatory
sentencing and "three strikes" laws are little more than a political play on
the fears of the electorate. There are countless stories of those tough laws
resulting in long sentences for petty crimes.

The three-strikes laws have created some especially bizarre stories of
offenders getting life sentences for little more than a minor misdemeanor.
It may satisfy a national craving for vengeance against criminals, but it
also results in demonstrably cruel and unusual punishment. And we, the
taxpayers, are footing the bill - food, clothing, shelter, security and
everything else - for every one of those prisoners.

Dangerous felons belong behind bars. There are plenty of criminals in our
prisons who should be there - violent, habitual offenders who must be kept
out of society. But is it worth the expense to impose long sentences
automatically, not because a judge believes it's necessary, but simply
because a formulaic law mandates it? That's the situation in North Carolina,
where the Structured Sentencing Act of 1994 specifies the length of
sentences, with especially harsh treatment for "habitual felons."

Despite complaints from defense attorneys, and even judges, that the law
often forces unfair, overdone sentences, the law-and-order majority in the
General Assembly has resisted any attempts to change it. Complaints - borne
out by statistics - that the law is unevenly applied and penalizes black
defendants far more than whites have also had no effect.

But money talks louder. There are nearly 34,000 inmates in North Carolina
prisons, and the number is growing steadily. More than 3,000 of them were
sentenced as habitual criminals. The state takes in about 21,000 new inmates
a year, and releases 20,000. To keep pace, state corrections officials say,
North Carolina needs to build a new 1,000-bed prison every year. At current
prices, each will cost at least $90 million, plus another $30 million a year
to operate.

If for no other reason than the state's going broke, something needs to
give. It's time to look at ways to stabilize, or even shrink, the size of
the state's prison population. Some changes in mandatory-sentencing laws are
one place to begin. Creative sentences for nonviolent crimes are another.
Technology now makes it possible for an offender to work at a public-service
job during the day and be locked in his or her home (monitored by an
electronic bracelet) at all other times. For many in our prison population,
rehabilitation is an option, and it should be pursued with the same fervor
that marked the imposition of mandatory sentencing.

Common sense should dictate that approach. But if that isn't enough, perhaps
sticker shock will do the trick.