PONDERING PRISONS

Here are a few givens about crime and punishment in North Carolina: Crime
has fallen but is still too high. North Carolina incarcerates wrongdoers at
a high rate but will need even more prison beds within a decade. But how many?

To avoid the expense of building thousands of new beds right away, the
state may need to do some judicious tinkering with sentencing laws to keep
dangerous criminals locked up but make modest reductions in some sentences
for habitual felons who don't fall into the worst categories.

How in the world is a state to sort through such competing choices? In
North Carolina, thanks to a bipartisan legislative and executive branch
effort that began in the late 1980s, there's an award-winning state agency
that helps policymakers sift through these difficult questions.

The N.C. Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission has developed
sophisticated database programs that allow the state to make accurate
predictions of future prison needs. The programs also allow policymakers to
predict accurately the likely effect on prisons if criminal sentences are
toughened or weakened.

This may not make the choices any easier, but it does give authorities and
the public alike a reasonable assurance of accuracy and likely outcomes
when the legislature makes changes in corrections law. It's particularly
timely now as the General Assembly faces having to sharply cut the time
that habitual felons serve in prisons or build thousands of additional cells.

Under the state's habitual-felon law, those convicted of four felonies can
be charged, convicted and sentenced to prison terms as long as those for
serious assaults, second-degree rape and second-degree murder. About 65
percent of habitual felons get that classification after committing
lower-level drug or property crimes that usually require two years or less
in prison. Yet under current law habitual felons can expect sentences
ranging from 5 to 14 years in prison.

Given that the state is in a recession, that there is no money available to
build or operate additional prisons and that 3,000 new prison beds are
already in the planning process, does it make sense to continually build
new beds? As a practical matter, it does.

But as the work of the sentencing policy commission shows, the state can
avoid having to build so many new beds in the short term if it makes
adjustments in sentencing policy for habitual felons. The forthcoming
recommendations still contemplate punishing habitual felons with longer
sentences than others, but not quite as long as sentences are now. Reducing
sentences for low-level drug and property crimes might save more than 1,800
beds over 10 years -- the equivalent of saving two prisons that can cost
$75 million each to build and $17 million each to operate annually.

The sentencing commission recommendations give legislators helpful data to
make reasonable decisions. Lawmakers should study and debate them fully so
they, and the public, understand the consequences. Before they decide how
to proceed, they must ensure that the worst criminals remain locked up,
that sufficient prison beds will exist when we need them and that those
convicted of less-serious crimes are punished appropriately.