RELEASING PRISONERS A KNEE-JERK REACTION

It's been nearly five years since Gov. Paul Patton, joined by Republicans
and Democrats alike, signed a new comprehensive criminal justice package
that was the state's first major piece of crime legislation in 25 years.

Not a single dissenting vote was cast in either the Senate or the House,
and pledges were made about tougher laws, longer sentences and more
prisons, all of which would lead to making Kentucky a better, safer place
to live.

It's amazing what a few years -- and a budget deficit in the hundreds of
millions -- can do to change the legislative atmosphere.

Patton told the Lexington Herald-Leader last week that the state may have
to release thousands of prisoners from jail because it simply can't afford
to house them anymore. This isn't just a Patton idea -- it seems to have at
least some bipartisan support.

The fiery rhetoric of locking up the bad guys and throwing away the key has
been replaced with backtracking assurances that those released would not be
"a threat to the community," as Senate Majority Leader Dan Kelly, a
Springfield Republican, has said.

It would be easy to dismiss this idea as an knee-jerk reaction, which it
is. But it should be cause for greater concern, as well. The phrase "belt
tightening" has been thrown around a lot lately. If, however, the housing
of prisoners is considered a non-essential service that can be cut, where
will the line be drawn? If you cinch your belt too tight, you eventually
can't breathe.

In reality, such an idea is merely an extension of government passing the
buck. State lawmakers will justify releasing prisoners by saying it will
help balance the budget, and thus avoid the need for any tax increases. But
the first to be let out would come from the pool of about 3,200 felons
being housed in county jails. The state pays a fee to local entities to
house the low-level offenders, and thus local governments depend on this
money to operate their jails.

When all the promises about tougher laws and more prisons were being thrown
around, the state encouraged counties to build bigger jails to help out.
Now that many have done so, including Daviess County, the state wants to
pull inmates, and the funding that comes with them. The result will be
local governments will have to pick up the slack.

That's not to say localities shouldn't bear some of the expense. They will
need to determine how much labor is a variable cost, and as inmate
population declines, local jails will have to adjust accordingly by
reducing staff. But whether it be at the state or local level, Kentuckians
will eventually have to pick up some costs.

Rather than looking at releasing prisoners, perhaps the state should look
at whether they should be in jail in the first place. If, in fact, those
who would be released pose no danger to society, it seems to give
credibility to those who say the state focuses too much on punishment and
not enough on rehabilitation.

Statistics indicate that, in absence of any treatment, at least one-third
of the inmates released under this plan will be back behind bars within two
years. How does this make Kentucky a better place to live? All it does is
save the state a little money at the price of another crime committed.

Releasing prisoners will send the message that Kentucky decides who goes to
jail or goes free based on whether or not it can afford to house and feed
that person. Instead, it should review the system to ensure those dangerous
to society are behind bars, and those simply in need of help are sent to
drug courts or other rehabilitating diversion programs.