SMARTER SENTENCING FOR DRUG OFFENDERS

During these difficult fiscal times, legislators are being challenged to
find ways to save money in the budget. We are also eyeing a new wave of
violent crime that threatens to erase the strides made in reducing crime
during the past decade. As the Senate chairwoman of the Legislature's
Criminal Justice Committee, I believe the Commonwealth can save between $10
million and $15 million by making a minor change to our criminal drug
statutes. My proposal - to make drug offenders eligible for parole - will
save money and enhance public safety without reducing an offender's
underlying sentence. Currently, people convicted of drug crimes are subject
to mandatory minimum sentencing laws that were passed in the early 1980s.
Unlike laws dealing with most other crimes, these statutes dictate that
offenders must serve a set number of years in jail or prison regardless of
their past criminal record, the mitigating circumstances of their case, or
their rehabilitation efforts in prison. This results in many first-time
offenders or minor players in the drug trade serving sentences far greater
than their record or their crime merits.

Most disturbing is that mandatory minimum sentencing by its nature
guarantees that people who have been convicted of drug crimes are released
back into the community without any supervision. A recent study by the
independent think tank Mass INC stated that this lack of supervision leads
to greater recidivism and hurts public safety. Mass INC found that almost
half of all unsupervised prisoners would offend again within three years of
being released. Thus, individuals involved in the drug trade - people who
could certainly benefit from post-release supervision - are denied it
because there is no provision for probation or parole.

In addition, mandatory minimum sentences strip corrections officials of
their ability to provide incentives to prisoners for good behavior. A
nonviolent prisoner with no chance for parole has little incentive to stay
out of trouble while in jail.

Every prisoner costs taxpayers more than $36,000 a year to keep locked up.
At those prices, prison beds should be reserved for violent felons who pose
a clear threat to the community. Earlier this year, Acting Governor Swift
announced that she was closing three state prisons due to the budget
crunch. If we continue down this road we may find ourselves in the
disastrous position of letting truly dangerous people out of prison so drug
offenders can serve their mandatory sentences.

Fortunately, we can still address this problem. I propose allowing drug
offenders who are serving mandatory minimum sentences to be eligible for
parole after serving two-thirds of their sentence. This proposal does not
repeal minimum sentences - drug offenders will continue to be sentenced to
tough prison terms. By allowing the possibility of parole, however, persons
who deserve release will no longer take up costly prison space and will
receive supervision as they are integrated back into the community.

The Massachusetts Sentencing Commission estimates that if we apply this
parole eligibility to prisoners currently serving mandatory drug sentences,
we could almost immediately shrink the prison population by nearly 400
people while supervising them as they integrate into the community. Such a
significant decrease, even with an increase in spending on parole, would
save $10 million to $15 million annually.

This is not an issue of being tough or soft on crime. Rather, it is an
issue of being both smart on crime and fiscally responsible. Several states
have recently moderated or even repealed their mandatory minimum drug
sentences for both policy and fiscal reasons. States such as Louisiana,
Connecticut, and North Dakota have saved millions of dollars by reexamining
their sentencing policies. The United States has become the largest jailer
in the industrialized world, with more than 2 million people in federal,
state, and local corrections facilities. We have to ask ourselves whether
our supposedly tough criminal justice policies are simply leading to
further problems down the road.

Lest we forget, 99 percent of convicted criminals will be allowed back into
our communities, many of them without any skills or supervision to steer
them away from offending again. My plan to allow for parole consideration
under minimum mandatory drug sentences should be part of a comprehensive
strategy aimed at preventing recidivism and spending our limited public
safety resources more wisely.

The time has come to moderate our costly policies on drug sentencing, save
tax dollars, and improve public safety. Whether for fiscal or policy
reasons, we cannot afford to ignore mandatory minimum sentencing during
these troubled economic times.

Cynthia Stone Creem is the Democratic state senator from Newton.