Pubdate: Fri, 30 May 2003 Source: News & Observer (NC) Copyright: 2003 The News and Observer Publishing Company Contact: http://www.news-observer.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/304 Author: Dan Kane Bookmark: http://www.mapinc.org/prison.htm (Incarceration) OPTIONS WITHER AS STATE PRISONS FILL State legislators are facing a no-win situation as they deal with a prison population that's spiraling upward in tough times. They can spend hundreds of millions of dollars on prisons and face criticism for letting other needs go unmet. Or they could reduce sentences and be labeled soft on crime. "Both options are painful," said Susan Katzenelson, executive director of the N.C. Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission. "Prison construction is incredibly expensive, and reducing sentences is politically risky." Until Thursday, it looked as if the cell builders would win. But some House Finance Committee members, alarmed at a prison building provision in the Senate budget bill that would put the state $391 million deeper in debt, pushed for a closer look at revising sentencing laws to free up some beds. Projections show that the state will need to house more than 42,000 inmates by 2012. Three 1,000-bed prisons opening by the end of this year will only make a dent in the demand. Another 7,700 beds will still be needed. "We have three prisons in the budget, and there are other alternatives that are the recommendations of the sentencing commission," said Rep. Deborah Ross, a Raleigh Democrat. "There are bills out there that might reduce the need for prison beds." Five bills to be exact. But so far, none of them has moved through the House or Senate. Combined, they would save $900 million in prison construction and operation costs over the next decade. They also would free up about 5,600 beds by reducing sentences for nearly anyone except for those on death row or serving life in prison. But attempts to move the bills have met opposition. Law enforcement officials say legislators are reducing sentences to save beds, not to make sure the punishment fits the crime. "It's all about reducing demand, and that's not the way to run the railroad," said Buncombe County District Attorney Ronald Moore, a sentencing commission member. Moore points out that the commission's proposals are not recommendations, just options put forth at the request of legislators. Since the state moved to structured sentencing in 1994, taking much of the discretion out of the hands of judges, legislators have toughened sentencing laws and added felonies. One result is that the prison population is growing faster than anticipated. Sen. Wib Gulley, a Durham Democrat who introduced three of the sentencing commission bills, said they are as much about fairness as they are cutting costs. "You have a net savings over 10 years of about 3,100 beds, but you do so without softening or weakening your treatment of violent, dangerous criminals," Gulley said. "What you are doing is what structured sentencing is all about: using your beds for the most violent, dangerous people." The three prisons being erected in Scotland, Anson and Alexander counties will cost the state $374 million in construction and financing costs, and another $54 million a year to operate. When the last one opens by early next year, the prison system will still need beds for nearly 1,300 inmates. That's led legislators to suggest all kinds of measures to save money. They've asked about double-bunking cells, cutting construction costs by reducing the size of cells, and finding ways to have fewer guards monitor inmates. Prison officials say those options endanger guards or violate an inmate's right to humane treatment. Sen. John Kerr, a Goldsboro Democrat, proposed the three new prisons in the Senate budget bill. They would use the lease-purchase method being used for the three prisons now under construction. The method allows a private contractor to finance and build the prisons, then lease them back to the state over the next 20 years. Kerr said building three more prisons now would save the state $25 million in construction costs. He estimated $10 million of those savings would come from using the same concrete slab manufacturer, and the rest from not having to conform to a new building code that takes effect July 1. One prison would be in Greene County, within Kerr's district. A second would be in Bertie County, while Columbus County appears to be a front-runner for the third. By inserting the prisons into the budget, Kerr circumvented a review by the House Finance Committee, which typically handles legislation that requires the issuance of debt. Some took him to task Thursday for not giving them a chance to weigh in on the proposal. "I think many of us find it really inappropriate to put something in the budget without going through the House Finance Committee," said Rep. Joe Hackney, an Orange County Democrat. "I think instead of speeding up the process, you've slowed it down." Kerr said he feared that if the prisons were not in the budget bill, they would miss the July 1 deadline. He doubted some House members' assertions that the recommendations had a chance of passing. "If you all have the political will to change the sentencing laws, do it," Kerr said. "But you don't have the political will." Katzenelson and other criminal justice experts say legislators will likely have to do both. Kerr's proposed prisons would leave the system about 4,700 beds short by 2012. "If people really want to solve the problem responsibly, they need to use some combination," she said. "Five or six new prisons won't suffice, so does the state have enough money to build other prisons? Yes. But will there be enough money left for other needs?" (Sidebar) options to reduce prison time The N.C. Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission has offered five ideas for changes to the state's criminal justice laws that could eliminate the need for 5,600 beds over the next 10 years. OPTION 1: Reduce the impact of prior convictions on a person's current penalty: 1,916 beds. OPTION 2: Make sentences for subsequent convictions increase proportionately to prior convictions: 1,306 beds. OPTION 3: Reduce the minimum sentence for violent offenders by three months and extend the length of their post-release supervision from nine months to a year: 613 beds. OPTION 4: Reduce the sentence for nonviolent habitual felons: 1,763 beds. OPTION 5: Reduce the penalty for statutory rape or sexual offense of a person who is 13, 14 or 15 years old in cases when the offender is more than four years but less than six years older than the victim: 25 beds. - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom