Pubdate: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 Source: Greenville News (SC) Copyright: 2010 The Greenville News Contact: http://greenvillenews.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/877 Author: Christopher Scalzo OUR STATE SHOULD FOCUS ON GETTING SMART ON CRIME Efforts to improve the criminal justice system are too often reduced to political slogans. Proposals labeled "tough" win, while those branded "soft" lose. We seem trapped in an "I'm tough -- you're soft on crime" debate. It's an unproductive debate that doesn't tell us whether an idea will actually improve the criminal justice system. Even worse, our get-tough-only politics is over-filling our prisons and costing us more than we can afford. There is a better approach. Instead of just getting tough, we can get smart on crime. What is getting smart on crime? Getting smart on crime is recognizing that the criminal justice system is a complex, multifaceted system that cannot be reduced to one-dimensional solutions. It is thinking about the effectiveness of our approaches, and how to measure and track them. It is thinking about costs and ways to get more for the money we spend. Frankly, it means identifying people who are violent and need to be incarcerated. But it also involves looking at less-expensive alternatives to incarceration for non-violent offenders and at ways of transitioning people from prison back into society. In an ideal world getting tough on crime should include all of these things. But the fear of being labeled "soft" on crime has paralyzed our ability to focus on solutions that deliver success. Discussing criminal justice reform gets dominated by the "I'm tough -- you're soft on crime" politics. No one wants to be labeled "soft" on anything. And everyone always wants the "tough" label applied to their idea. But "tough" and "soft" are the wrong adjectives to use when discussing criminal justice reform. Not because we should let crime slide or coddle criminals, but because neither label sufficiently informs the debate. They oversimplify the complexity of the criminal justice system. Where has getting tough gotten us? We have used the getting tough approach to increase sentences for violent and non-violent crimes. We've used it to eliminate parole and probation for many crimes, including non-violent offenses. The result is that we are incarcerating more people then ever before for longer sentences at costs we cannot afford. Yet we have not seen a significant reduction in recidivism. For a year, the South Carolina Sentencing Reform Commission studied our criminal justice system. It recently issued a report on its findings and recommended solutions. According to this report, our total prison population increased from 9,137 in 1983 to more than 25,000 today. Almost half of the prison population -- 49 percent -- are people being held for non-violent crimes. It costs us about $14,000 per year per prisoner. This explosion in prison population has come with a hefty price tag. According to the report, in 1983 we spent $63.71 million on our prisons. Today we spend 500 percent more: $394.14 million. Without changes, it is projected that in 5 years we will add more than 3,200 prisoners to the system. That will cost an additional $141 million and may require us to spend $317 million more to build a new prison. Just getting tough on crime isn't working. We are running out of space to house violent criminals who need to be in prison because we are incarcerating too many non-violent offenders. We are also running out of money to pay for it. The solution to our problem is to stop using the get tough approach as the only answer. The recommendations found in the report on sentencing reform take a smart approach to crime. A bill has been crafted based on those recommendations and is pending in the Legislature. Senate bill S. 1154 - -- "The Omnibus Crime Reduction and Sentencing Reform Act of 2010" -- offers smart solutions to some of our problems. The bill gets tough, but in a smart way. In specific and necessary areas, punishment is increased. For example, it increases penalties for crimes where death results and reclassifies 24 crimes as violent offenses. But getting smart on crime also means understanding that we need to go beyond only getting tough. S. 1154 takes a system-wide, multi-dimensional approach. It adds sentencing tools to the judge's sentencing toolbox -- tools like home incarceration and electronic monitoring -- without removing prison as a tool should a judge find prison necessary. It requires use of evidence-based practices to help lower recidivism rates, and it provides on-going oversight of its many reforms. The bill is comprehensive and cost-conscious. It relies on data and research to offer smart solutions. Just getting tough on crime has cost us more money than we can afford - -- and hasn't provided us the results we want. We need a better way. We need to get smart on crime. I encourage everyone to support S. 1154; it's an important smart step. - --- MAP posted-by: Jo-D