Get Active Subscribe Support Us

A FRESH LOOK AT DRUG LAWS

But Reducing Possession Penalties Alone Wouldn't Uncrowd Prisons. 

Reducing sentences for some drug crimes wouldn't solve the problem of prison overcrowding, but it's worth investigating.  The real answer lies in swallowing hard and paying the cost of the long sentences for more dangerous crimes to protect society. 

Easing up on penalties for drug possession is hardly a novel suggestion for reducing prison populations.  What's different now is that the leaders of the Indiana Senate and the House of Representatives agree that the time has come for a new look at drug laws. 

The Associated Press reports that Democratic House Speaker Pat Bauer and Republican Senate President Pro Tem Bob Garton agree the Legislature may need to change laws that sometimes require lengthy prison sentences for possession of relatively small amounts of illegal drugs. 

"It may be time to revisit what the rush to judgment was starting about a decade ago," Bauer told the AP, referring to harsher drug penalties enacted in the late 1980s and early 1990s. 

We agree that confining fewer drug users in prison would be a step toward making prison supply fit the population.  But it's impossible to know how big a step that would be. 

The Indiana Department of Correction reports that 19.3 percent of its adult inmates have controlled-substance crimes as their most serious offenses.  But it doesn't break that figure down into those convicted of possession and those convicted of dealing.  Nor does it divide that population according to what drugs they were convicted of selling or possessing.  Even if all these inmates were sprung from state prisons tomorrow, the facilities still wouldn't have enough room. 

Gov.  Joe Kernan said this week that state prisons have room for about 16,000 prisoners, but they currently house almost 23,000.  Removing more than 4,000 prisoners who are there for drug crimes would still leave the state well over capacity. 

Here are two places for the state to reconsider drug-crime punishments:

* Draw a sharper distinction between possession and dealing.  It would be a bold and controversial move, but the state could say that drug possession alone doesn't warrant a cot in the penitentiary. 

The state could refer such prisoners back to treatment programs or other alternative sentences in their home communities.  Or, if the offenders' home counties wanted these users locked up, those counties could foot the bills to keep them in county jails. 

* Punish drug dealers more severely if they actually sell to minors.  But rethink the elaborate framework of geographic restrictions that snare some drug users in much harsher penalties.  The law calls for much stricter penalties, even in simple drug-possession cases, if the offenders are within 1,000 feet of a public school or park. 

How big a difference does it make? Get caught with three grams or more of cocaine, and it's a class C felony, with a standard sentence of four years in prison.  Get caught with the same amount of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a park, even in your own home, and it's a class A felony, with a standard sentence of 30 years. 

Enacting such differential penalties had little to do with protecting children from drugs and everything to do with legislators crowing about their toughness. 

Obviously, springing the least risky echelon of pot-smokers from state prisons won't be enough.  And, as Allen County Prosecutor Karen Richards points out, the state already doesn't house Class D felony offenders, such as those caught dealing moderate amounts of marijuana or possessing small amounts of cocaine. 

She says that tweaking drug penalties wouldn't be enough to make too few prisons accommodate too many prisoners.  The real answer is building more prisons and funding two recently completed but unstaffed state prisons, she said. 

We strongly support a fresh look at drug penalties, but it's obvious that the biggest part of solving prison crowding will be funding more prisons.  And, in general, long prison sentences are a sensible, if quite costly, use of state funds. 

When convicted burglars, robbers, rapists and child abusers are in prison, there are fewer potential criminals on the streets.  In fact, the role of long prison sentences in reducing crime isn't given enough credit for generally flat or declining crime rates. 

Paying the price for making criminals pay is another priority too pressing for the General Assembly to let it slide ignored through another session.