Pubdate: Wed, 12 Mar 2003
Source: Oklahoma Daily, The (OK Edu)
Copyright: 2003 Oklahoma Daily
Contact:  http://www.oudaily.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1371
Note: This paper is published by the University of Oklahoma
Author: Matt Cox
Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/find?199 (Mandatory Minimum Sentencing)

CHANGES IN PRISON SYSTEM COULD SAVE STATE MONEY

Prison overcrowding and the early release of prisoners have long been 
important issues in Oklahoma and the rest of the country.

The problem never really goes away, but every once in a while it becomes 
more prominent.

One of those times is now.

When government officials begin to discuss releasing people from prison, it 
is often because the prisons are running out of space.

The current problem is the result not only of space constraints but also of 
the budget shortfalls affecting every branch of state government. The 
Department of Corrections is no exception and therefore must look for ways 
to reduce spending.

One idea that was almost implemented last year was furloughs for 
corrections employees, including prison guards.

The public was understandably concerned that having fewer guards on duty 
could make prison escapes more likely.

Escapes occur relatively often even when a full complement of guards is on 
duty, so these fears were arguably quite justified. At a special session 
last fall, the state Legislature appropriated $9.8 million in additional 
funding in order to avoid the furloughs, but the idea is being discussed 
again now.

Another idea that our state is considering is the reinstatement of a law 
that would allow the early release of certain nonviolent inmates.

This law was previously on the books but was repealed in 2001, partly in 
response to a brutal crime in which a man released under the law murdered 
his ex-girlfriend and her parents and also wounded his own son before being 
killed by police.

While that situation was certainly tragic, and the possibility always 
exists for similar incidents to occur, that is not a sufficient reason not 
to bring back the program.

Inmates eligible for early release would generally be very close to their 
regular date of release, so denying the early release would not keep the 
few potentially violent offenders locked away indefinitely. Of course, it 
is impossible to know which inmates will revert to crime after their 
release, just as it is impossible to know which citizens will resort to 
crime in the first place.

Another proposed idea to save money and to relieve overcrowding is the 
elimination of mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses.

This is an idea that should be in place even if the state were not facing 
its current crisis.

Mandatory minimum sentences do not always allow judges and juries the 
flexibility to set sentences that they feel are appropriate to the 
particular crime in question.

A variety of circumstances are present in every case that goes through our 
courts, and the sentences imposed should be able to accurately reflect any 
mitigating factors.

A complementary idea is to allow more nonviolent offenders to participate 
in community sentencing programs.

This would save the state a lot of money in incarceration costs by allowing 
offenders to pay back their communities by performing community service 
rather than by spending time in prison.

For drug offenders, an increased emphasis on treatment should be 
implemented, as well. Helping people to break their drug habits and to find 
gainful employment makes a lot more sense both monetarily and morally than 
incarcerating them when their only offense is the possession of drugs.

While a significant number of people might disagree with me about not 
giving every drug offender prison time, most people would probably agree 
that white-collar criminals could be released without endangering public 
safety. Many of these offenders probably should have never been imprisoned 
in the first place.

I am definitely not advocating that they should go unpunished. However, in 
many cases, it would make more sense just to fine these offenders heavily 
but allow them to remain out of prison so that they could continue to work 
and pay off their fine. This would be quite beneficial financially, since 
those in question would be contributing money to the state rather than 
costing the state money as prisoners.

Many would argue that these offenders also deserve a loss of freedom for 
their crimes, but it would be wise to save the prison time for a second 
offense.

Oklahoma's budget shortfall has provided an incentive to re-assess some of 
our sentencing guidelines and imprisonment policies.

Many of the proposed ideas should have received consideration before we 
were in such a distressful financial situation.

- --Matt Cox is a letters senior.

His column appears on alternate Wednesdays.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom