Click here to return to the Post and Courier

Give sentencing plan fair hearing

Opposition by most of the state's solicitors to an alternative sentencing proposal has cast a pall over legislation that would achieve that end. But legislators should weigh its pros and cons, including but not limited to the solicitors' position. It is our lawmakers' responsibility to give alternative sentencing a fair hearing.

Alternative sentences, including house arrest and electronic monitoring, for nonviolent offenders was recommended by Corrections Director Jon Ozmint. He tells us he heard no dissent from solicitors when he made a presentation to them last year.

Since then, however, 12 of the state's 13 solicitors have decided to oppose the plan as giving some offenders an undeserved break. That puts lawmakers in the awkward position of looking soft on crime in an election year.

But the proposal has indisputable benefits for the state's prison system, which is struggling with a constant influx of new inmates and one of the largest ratios of inmates per guards in the nation. Barring evidence that alternative sentencing is a threat to public safety, lawmakers shouldn't let the plan die.

The proposal was designed to reduce the burgeoning expense of operating prisons by providing alternatives for inmates convicted of nonviolent offenses. About half of the prison system's population would immediately be ineligible for the program. The program would be available to only nonviolent offenders serving sentences five years or less with no prior record of a violent crime.

Mr. Ozmint, a former solicitor, believes it would benefit prison security and the department's financial situation, which required prisons to operate at a deficit last year. More than 1,100 prisoners are added to the number of inmates in South Carolina each year, further increasing the ratio between prisoners and guards. At 10 to one, it's almost double the national average.

"We've painted all our felons with the same brush for some years," says Senate Corrections and Penology Committee Chairman Mike Fair, in comments quoted by The Associated Press. "But there is some validity to treating violent and nonviolent offenders differently."

Mr. Fair, who has described himself as "a lock-them-up, throw-away-the-key fellow," tells us the proposal deserves further consideration, despite the solicitors' objections.

If lawmakers can improve the state Corrections Department's budget woes and strengthen its security without endangering public safety, they would be remiss in failing to do so.

Click here to return to story:
http://www.charleston.net/stories/021404/edi_14edit2.shtml