POINT OF VIEW: PRISON ALTERNATIVES NEED EXPLORING

REGARDING "Inmates' early release hurts safety," by Rep. Fred Morgan
("Point of View," Dec. 15): Punishment for criminals has never been an
exact science. Prior to the passage of the 85 percent law by the state
Legislature for certain violent crimes, the law required that any
defendant, having two or more prior convictions, was required to serve a
sentence of not less than 20 years; after one prior conviction, he was
required to serve not less than 10 years. Only the district attorney has
the power to waive this provision of the law and is the leverage of the
"plea bargaining" system that results in more than 90 percent of pleas by
defendants.

Many people are serving 20-plus years in the state's correctional system
for nonviolent crimes. An example is one of my clients, serving 30 years
for concealing a cell phone from his girlfriend after having previously
been convicted of two minor drug charges. Without the two prior felony
convictions, the range of punishment was zero to five years. In his case,
the district attorney's office refused to waive the "three strikes and your
out law" of two prior felonies and the jury set punishment at 30 years.

In Oklahoma, jurors are required to determine punishment. One question
during deliberation has always been "when will the defendant be eligible
for parole?" The court always instructs the jury "that parole is a function
of the executive branch and not for their consideration." The result of
lengthy prison terms for the offender is predictable because of the
uncertainty of the defendant's eligibility for parole.

The Legislature needs to recognize that continuing to incarcerate repeat,
nonviolent offenders for prison terms that should be reserved for only the
violent offender is the primary cause of the ballooning prison population
in Oklahoma, costing taxpayers millions of dollars each year.

Recent programs such as community sentencing and drug courts, funded with
state and federal dollars, have proved successful and effective, at 15
percent the cost of incarceration. The benefits of probation,
rehabilitation and supervision are common sense answers to the archaic
"warehouse" approach to punishment for nonviolent offenders. This
philosophy only serves to refuel the gas tank for such offenders to commit
more crimes upon their release, because the underlying problems of poverty,
lack of education or drug abuse contributes to a continuing lifestyle of
criminal conduct.

No one is advocating that accountability for individuals who continue to
violate the law be abrogated. It is simply time to silence the "town crier"
about thousands of criminals being unleashed on the public and creating an
atmosphere of danger and panic, when the Legislature has failed to fix an
inequitable system of punishment and fund alternative programs that will
benefit the nonviolent offender and protect the public.