LOWERING THE BARS

HARD TIMES call for hard decisions, and Gov. Frank Keating is prepared to
soften his tough stance on crime by commuting the sentences of about 1,000
inmates. We reluctantly concur with this decision. In one of his last acts
as governor, Keating is ready to reverse a historic trend of keeping more
offenders behind bars for longer terms. He's urging state Pardon and Parole
Board members to review the cases of inmates who are thought to pose the
least risk to society.

This move is not about mercy. It's about money. Keating himself termed his
plan as regrettable but necessary. Oklahoma is now among the top 10 states
in terms of the percentage of budget shortfalls. This is one of 31 states
with serious budget gaps that have left governors looking for ways to cut
spending or increase taxes.

The Department of Corrections is a tempting target for spending cuts, but
this can only happen if the state reduces the inmate population. Keating's
tough stance on crime is not regrettable. It has led to a reduction in
major crimes and safer streets.

But it's also been expensive. Last week, the Legislature met in special
session to make a supplemental appropriation to the Corrections Department.
The action is designed to avert furloughs of correctional officers, but in
the absence of improved state revenues it will merely delay furloughs
rather than avert them.

The commutation plan was thus born of necessity. Keating asked the
Corrections Department to identify inmates who could be released early
without posing a threat to society. Of course, it would take only a single
crime committed by just one of these inmates to cast doubt on the plan's
advisability.

Among the criteria for inclusion in the commutation plan is the absence of
convictions for violent crimes. Drug offenders are eligible if they were
not involved in trafficking. Chronic offenders are excluded, including
those with more than one prior felony incarceration.

Releasing 1,000 inmates will not solve the Department of Corrections'
funding shortages, but saving $1.5 million is a good start. It's the kind
of thing that must happen throughout state government to handle the crisis
and avoid tax increases. To solve the state's funding shortages with
wholesale reductions in the inmate population would only increase the
eventual outlay for police, insurance and other costs associated with high
crime rates.

On the other hand, if the state can find ways to cut the prison population
with only modest risks to society, it must be done and it must be done quickly.