THERE IS A BETTER, CHEAPER WAY THAN LOCKING UP ALL THESE PEOPLE

"THAT 45 PERCENT figure -- does that shock you? That's people who aren't in
for a violent offense and don't have a violent offense on their record. I
was shocked by that number."

Jon Ozmint, the new director of the S.C. Department of Corrections, said
that, his voice filled with wonder, a month ago today. He was talking about
the staggering number of people in prison in South Carolina who don't
necessarily need to be there.

That number is just one of many facts that Mr. Ozmint was absorbing about
the department he had recently been appointed to run. He had also learned
that he had inherited a department full of dedicated, overworked, underpaid
people whose jobs and very lives were endangered by draconian budget cuts
over the last two years. And one of his first jobs was to find more cuts.

Last week, he reluctantly announced the results of his labors -- 148 jobs
would be eliminated in the department. More than half of the positions were
educators. That means that unless he can replace them with volunteers,
fewer prisoners will have any chance at rehabilitation.

Worse, those cuts may have been just the first installment, since he is
still far short of meeting his budget. And small shifts in the marketplace
could erase the savings from those 148 positions. "If the price of gas goes
up and the price of utilities, that six million's going to be gone," he said.

Meanwhile, Mr. Ozmint is looking for more creative solutions. One place
he's likely to start is with that 45 percent figure. It refers to the
number of people in the state's prisons who have never been convicted of a
violent act.

Last week, he told me that figure was really more like 48 percent -- in
other words, almost half of the 23,500 or so currently in the custody of
his department.

He wonders, as do I, why all of those people need to be in prison, costing
the taxpayers $14,000 apiece to house, guard and feed them, when they could
be outside working and paying restitution for their crimes -- in other
words, paying society back instead of being a financial burden.

Mr. Ozmint notes that some of the 48 percent need to be in prison, even
though their crimes were "nonviolent." The prisons director still thinks
like the prosecutor he was, and he has no desire to put major drug dealers
out on the street.

But many of them don't need to be there, and Mr. Ozmint has started talking
to lawmakers about ways to get some of those less-dangerous offenders out
from behind bars while still keeping them on a tight rein.

He envisions a tiered approach:

* Those who are still regarded as somewhat risky could be monitored by
satellite. It's relatively expensive (about $10 a day), but the prisoners
would be out working and paying the cost themselves.

* Slightly lower-risk individuals could be on conventional electronic
monitoring -- less expensive, but not as foolproof as the satellite systems.

* More trustworthy types would simply have to phone in frequently at set
times from a certain telephone number, with voice-recognition software
keeping them honest.

* Finally, the lowest-risk subjects would just check in by phone once a
week or so, as parolees have done for ages.

An important part of this plan, as Mr. Ozmint sees it, is that all of these
ex-prisoners would still be legally in the custody of the Corrections
Department. That way, if they mess up and need to go back inside, they can
be put there without having to clog up the courts with further hearings.

Mr. Ozmint points out emphatically that he's not criticizing judges for
sending him these inmates in the first place. He says our laws leave judges
little choice. All they have now to choose from is probation -- which many
of these folks have already "flunked" -- and incarceration. That's why he'd
like lawmakers to provide a third way.

And lawmakers, some of them at least, are receptive.

Sen. Mike Fair, R-Greenville, chairman of the Senate Corrections and
Penology Committee, is looking for just such creative solutions. Of Mr.
Ozmint's ideas, he said, "We're in the harness with him on that."

Sen. Fair notes the apparent irony that he and Mr. Ozmint and others seen
as hard-line law-and-order types would be looking for ways to keep crooks
out of prison. (Mocking his own reputation, his first response when asked
about alternatives to incarceration was to say, "You mean, like firing
squads?")

He says he's learned a few things about the realities of the penal system
since assuming the responsibility of his chairmanship. "The epiphany has
been gradual," he said, but after visiting many of the state's prisons and
observing the same dedicated, yet stressed, public servants who have
impressed Mr. Ozmint with their stoic efforts, he has seen the need to
change the state's approach.

Besides, "The money crunch has gotten our attention," he said.

He and Mr. Ozmint both want a committee -- one representing not only
lawmakers, but solicitors, wardens and others who have a stake in the
system -- to study alternatives, with the goal of presenting legislation
next year.

"Perceived conservatives and perceived liberals are on the same page on
this" now, says Sen. Fair. More and more, they're realizing that there has
to be a better way.