FREEING UP PRISON BEDS WON'T HELP US SLEEP SAFELY

The Robesonian, Lumberton

Some lawmakers are considering shortening mandatory sentences as a
response to our overflowing state prisons.

We have another idea: Why doesn't a prison guard just leave the front
gate slightly ajar once the lights are turned out? That should free
up some beds -- and provide about the same amount of security for the
population as shorter sentences, which is to say a lot less.

...The lawmakers have asked a state commission to come up with
sentencing alternatives to reduce the need for additional beds. They
include lighter sentences for nonviolent habitual felons convicted of
property crimes and lesser drug offenses, and reducing the weight
given to prior convictions during sentencing.

The shorter-sentences option is quick and easy, but offers no other
advantage that we can see. It would send exactly the wrong message to
criminals.

The first thing the state should do is to continue to explore
alternative sentences for criminals convicted of using drugs. If drug
use is a disease, then why do these people end up in prison instead
of rehabilitation centers? Note, we are talking about drug users, not
drug dealers.

Once this option is full exploited, then lawmakers might have a
better handle on exactly how many prison beds are needed. The state
now projects that 7,000 new beds will be needed by 2010. The problem
is the cost of seven new 1,000-bed prisons is fixed at $525 million
- -- a lot of money for a state that is faced each year with a
shortfall of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Some of this money could be recouped by increasing the number of
inmates per Department of Correction employee. It is now 1.7 inmates,
compared with a national average of 2.7.

We simply see no advantage to sending the criminals home early. We
believe North Carolina residents would rather give their money to the
state to build prisons than have their money stolen by someone with a
gun.