EDITORIAL: CORRECTING A BAD HABIT

Foolish policies helped put Wisconsin in its present fiscal hole.
Among them was Madison's habit of jacking up criminal penalties
without regard to their cost. As a consequence, the corrections budget
swelled sevenfold over the last two decades. Hence, in looking for
ways to make up a $1.1 billion shortfall in the state budget, Gov.
Scott McCallum is right to target corrections for a hefty cut.

His proposal, however, would not sufficiently forestall fiscal
problems over the long haul. His $40 million cut would prompt only a
temporary dip in an otherwise upward budgetary trend line unless the
state can stop relying so heavily on expensive prisons to keep streets
safe.

Lawmakers did not consciously embark on a prison-building tear.
Rather, they haphazardly stiffened one criminal penalty after another
- - so much so that prisons became crowded, forcing the construction of
one additional prison after another. In that way, prison expansion
happened almost unawares.

The budget crisis gives McCallum a chance to get a handle on that
process. The governor is showing glimmers of long-term thinking in
asking lawmakers to adopt a proposed revision of the criminal code.
The revision was supposed to have accompanied truth in sentencing
legislation, which went into effect more than two years ago.

The new sentencing rules require judges to specify precisely how long
defendants will serve in prison, rather than to leave that
determination to the parole board, as under the old rules. The danger
of the switch is longer prison terms - and, thus, more congestion and
more prison construction and galloping costs. The new code is designed
to abate that problem.

Irresponsibly, the Legislature passed truth in sentencing without the
companion code revision, which, indeed, it should now approve. But
that step alone won't suffice to bring the corrections budget under
control.

McCallum should also push:

* A requirement that any criminal bill in the Legislature carry a
prison impact statement. For instance, a proposal to stiffen the
penalty for assault would include an estimate of how many more cells
the state would consequently have to build or lease.

* Greater use of prison alternatives, such as group homes, house
arrest or heavily monitored probation and mandatory drug treatment and
job training programs. Properly run, such programs can be more
effective in the long run than prisons in keeping streets safe. The
alternatives would help ensure that prisons have plenty of room for
truly dangerous criminals.

* The establishment of a sentencing commission, which would keep tabs
on sentencing practices around the state and thereby help keep
policy-makers informed on the dynamics of the crowding problem.

In other words, McCallum must get lawmakers to think more broadly than
they now do about corrections. Unfortunately, however, the governor
himself has exhibited narrow-minded thinking on the topic. He has
opposed a proposed settlement of an inmate lawsuit alleging that the
Supermax prison in Boscobel violates the constitutional prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment. The inmates already have
achieved one victory - an injunction against putting mentally ill
prisoners there - and the concessions asked of the state were modest.
Fighting the lawsuit is the costlier alternative. In choosing that
option, McCallum is displaying the kind of thinking that helped lead
to the state's runaway corrections budget.