South Carolina's rising crime rate was one of the foremost issues in the past election. Almost every candidate pledged to find new solutions to this disturbingly old problem.

Now it is time to turn rhetoric into reality. In South Carolina, we have the dubious distinction of ranking near the top of the nation's crime rates.

Despite promises by politicians to get tough on crime, the legislature has failed to pass a law that really locks up repeat offenders and keeps them off the streets. This year needs to be different.

No one should doubt the reality of the problem. Attorney General Condon has released figures which show that over a recent six-week period in South Carolina, 271 people with at least one prior violent crime conviction were arrested for committing yet another violent offense. Why were these individuals loose on the streets to begin with?

We must send these criminals the message that their brutal behavior is intolerable. Under present law, repeat offenders just don't get it. We need a law that deters crime by putting career criminals away for life.

Fortunately, Senator John Courson of Richland County has introduced a bill that takes on repeat offenders. The bill, S.41, has been deemed the "Two Strikes and You're In" bill.

The Two Strikes bill sets up a two-tiered system of sentencing for repeat violent offenders. Under the bill, convictions for either two crimes classified as "most serious offenses" or three crimes qualifying as "serious offenses" result in mandatory life imprisonment.

"Most serious offenses"under the Two Strikes bill include murder, assault and battery with intent to kill, kidnapping, rape, armed robbery, and first degree burglary. "Serious offenses" covered by the bill include drug trafficking, car jacking, arson resulting in bodily injury, lynching, and assault and battery with intent to kill.

To the average citizen, it is perfectly obvious that anyone who commits one of the "most serious offenses" covered by the bill, such as murder or rape, not once but twice, should spend the rest of his life in jail. Common sense dictates that, for our own safety, we must lock up perpetual violent offenders.

Nonetheless, the bill has opposition. Some people apparently do believe that life in prison is too severe of a punishment for repeat offenders. Other opponents have mostly focused on problems experienced in other states due to poorly drafted laws.

An often repeated story involves a California man who was sentenced to life without parole for stealing a slice of pizza. However, opponents of S.41 fail to point out that the California repeat offender statue was written much more broadly than South Carolina's Two Strikes proposal.

Opponents also neglect to tell you that in spite of the problems with the California legislation, it has produced a reduction in the state's violent crime rate. In fact, California's crime rate has dropped 6.7 percent.

As Mike Reynolds, a leader of the California three strikes initiative, explained: "This is what happens if you use good paint on your house. It costs a little more to begin with, but it lasts longer."

South Carolina's Two Strikes bill is tightly focused so as to make the greatest impact on that small percentage of individuals who commit the most crime. The bill is estimated to cost $70 million through the year 2010. Although a large amount to us, this is a small portion (approximately 1/1000th) of the entire state budget over fifteen years.

Considering that the legislature appropriates over $4 billion a year and will allocate more that $60 billion by the year 2010, the Two Strikes law is definitely affordable.

Nor is there any reason to believe that S.41 will result in crowded dockets. It is estimated that, over the next fifteen years, Two Strikes will put 1651 criminals behind bars, about 110 new prisoners a year. These numbers fail to support fears of long term congestion in court dockets and prisons.

Even if costs do increase somewhat in the first years of Two Strikes, the focus of the bill should avoid the costly problems incurred in other states. In the end, Two Strikes may actually save court costs by eliminating trial after trial of the same repeat offenders.

But the issue goes beyond statistics. The need to control crime is about who we are, and what we hope to become as a society. We deserve to feel safe in our homes at night, and secure in the mornings when we send our children off to school. We shouldn't have to live in a state of fear, our daily lives held hostage by a lawless few.

The time has come to restore punishment and deterrence to our criminal justice system, and to revisit the rights of innocent victims and law-abiding citizens. President Theodore Roosevelt once stated that "Obedience of the law is to be demanded, not asked as a favor." With Two Strikes, we quit "asking" and begin "demanding" lawful behavior.