OCT. 30, 2009 -- Given enough time, any pendulum, even the long arm of the law, will swing in the opposite direction.
That’s what is happening in South Carolina, where the state Sentencing Reform Commission has been working to reduce or erase prison time for convictions that had been heretofore considered serious.
In the ’60s, simple possession of a single marijuana cigarette in some states could result in several years in jail.
In the ’80s when crack cocaine exploded onto the drug scene and fueled a crime wave, federal and state governments set up draconian differences in punishments between traditional powder cocaine and the smoke-able rock.
Now in the ’00s, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder has announced that his department will not be using the federal Justice Department’s limited resources to pursue cases against “medical” marijuana sellers.
And the top lawman in South Carolina, state Attorney General Henry McMaster is an advocate of creating a “middle” court system, which diverts non-violent criminals, some first-time offender and others from prison into a beefed-up probation system, where, for instance, drug offenders get rehab instead of stripes.
Finding balance
So has South Carolina gone “soft on crime”?
Not by any means. What has been happening -- and will continue to unfold in the upcoming legislative session -- is a re-jiggering of the balance point between keeping society safe and lawful, and the state’s fiscal bottom line.
|
WHAT’S AHEAD
While there’s still a lot of work to be done on sentencing reform, legislators are closed-mouthed about what exactly will be in a reform package next year. However, several components could include:
- Creation of a middle court system for non-violent offenders.
- Compassionate release for seriously-ill inmates.
- Broader use of longer probation, including the possible appearance before original sentencing judge before release.
|
To work toward that, a commission comprised of state representatives, senators, lawyers, judges, prison officials and others have been meeting for months to see how to lighten the load on non-violent drug offenders, the prison system and the state’s operating budget.
According to a February presentation given to the Sentencing Reform Commission by the state Department of Corrections, there are three major reasons for the increase in prison population.
One, drug offenders. Two, mandatory sentencing. And three, “truth in sentencing” laws through which offenders cannot be paroled until they’ve served a minimum of 85 percent of their original sentence.
Corrections officials say that not only have more inmates been incarcerated in their facilities, but the inmates are staying longer. “The prison system is now housing 10 times the number of drug law violators [than] incarcerated in 1980,” the February 2009 report said. The report also stated the proposed middle court system would greatly reduce the number of inmates, and that non-“truth in sentencing” criminals were significantly less likely to return to prison after release or parole.
To house an inmate in 2006, the state spent over $13,000 a year. As of Oct. 15, the Department of Corrections’ facilities were 99.8 percent full at 24,098 inmates, according to its Web site.
Currently, Corrections is the only state department consistently running a major, multi-million dollar annual budget deficit. With enhanced and mandatory sentencing, some fear that the department’s deficit could continue to grow unless something is done to stem crime, reduce the number of prisoners in the system or discover a gold mine to refill state coffers.
According to Corrections, the cost in 2006 dollars to build a 500-bed maximum security institution would be $50 million, or $100,000 per bed; while a 192-bed minimum security housing unit added to an existing institution wasn’t that much cheaper -- $6.7 million, or $34,896 per bed.
Budget is having impact on priorities
State Sen. Jake Knotts (R-W. Columbia) knew what it was like years ago on the front lines of the drug war. A former vice cop, Knotts helped lock up people on drug possession and simple use charges that would draw a fine today.
“The balancing point has changed, has moved,” Knotts said, thanks to the national sentiment changing on non-serious drug crimes and the enormous expense of housing an inmate.
Knotts, who is serving on the Sentencing Reform Commission, said some of the blame falls on his former colleagues, who have focused on arresting users and street-level dealers to bolster their arrest records to increase the amount of grant money their departments could receive.
He said what needed to happed was that the police and courts needed to focus more on the major distributors, saving prison beds and extra attention for them.
But Knotts said drug crimes are not “victimless,” and that more needed to be done to protect society from them. But he added, interestingly, that he thought the least threatening criminal in the prison system was “the wife or husband who kills their spouse in the heat of passion.”
Rep. Murrell Smith (R-Sumter), a former public defender who also serves on the commission, said the “balancing point” has moved with nudges from national sentiment and the increased cost of housing inmates.
Smith has seen the state equalize its penalties for crack and powder cocaine, and said South Carolina is one of the latest in the country to address prison overcrowding and expense through a reexamination of its sentencing guidelines.
“The states you think of being more ‘hardcore’ about criminals -- Mississippi, Alabama, Texas -- have already gone through this process,” said Smith. “What we’re talking about here isn’t ‘theory’ or propaganda; it’s empirical data.”
Both Smith and Knotts said the Sentencing Reform Commission, with its members’ disparate points of view, has largely been able to reach consensus on what likely turn out to be its recommendations later next year.
Crystal ball: There can be no doubt that the state is facing a financial crisis in its prison system, where too many inmates staying too long are costing too much money. But how will reducing sentencing, or releasing to treatment those who would normally have been incarcerated, play in the upcoming election year in one of the nation’s most politically conservative states? That remains to be seen.