Pubdate: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 Source: Lexington Herald-Leader (KY) Copyright: 2004 Lexington Herald-Leader Contact: http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/240 Author: Ray Larson Related: http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v04.n1628.a01.html TOUGH SENTENCES MAKE STATE, NATION SAFER I fear that Kentuckians are about to repeat the horrible mistake we made when we stopped sending criminals to prison in the 1960s and '70s. It has taken law enforcement 20 years to bring the crime rate back down, but either we did not learn our lesson or today's criminal justice policy-makers don't rank the public's safety and security as a priority. Lt. Gov. Steve Pence and state Office of Drug Control Policy appear to be seeking support for incarcerating fewer people who commit crimes because they are drug addicts. And Robert Lawson, a longtime University of Kentucky law professor who has studied the prison population rates in Kentucky over the past 30 years, says we are incarcerating too many convicted criminals. Lawson says that "some meaningful reduction in the prison population . would begin to sound a necessary warning that there are limits beyond which the state should not go in its efforts to protect the public against crime." Should we say that there are limits to the state's efforts to protect the public against crime? Undoubtedly, there will be an effort to persuade the governor and legislature to incarcerate fewer convicted felons. Under Kentucky's sentencing laws, very few first-time convicted felons are sent to prison -- especially first-time drug offenders. They are typically offered drug treatment rather than incarceration, and I can't disagree with that. However, 94 percent of the inmates in U.S. prisons are violent and repeat offenders. They constitute the small percentage of criminals who commit the vast majority of crimes. Before elected leaders decide to retreat from protecting the public from crime, they should closely examine America's criminal justice history since the 1960s: a story of two eras and the major changes that divide them. The first era began in 1960 and ended in the mid-to-late 1970s. During that time, policy-makers increasingly questioned the wisdom and morality of incarcerating criminals. Crime policy was driv-en by the notion that society, not the individual, was somehow responsible for criminal conduct. Addressing the root causes of crime -- unemployment, poor education and inadequate diet -- was seen as the best strategy. So the criminal justice system relied less on punishment and more on social programs designed to alleviate the causes and to rehabilitate criminals. In 1960, just under 3.4 million crimes -- 290,000 of them violent -- were reported in America. The chance of being a crime victim was 1 in 53. The chance of being a victim of a violent crime was 1 in 622. By 1970, violent crime had increased by more than 250 percent. The chance of being a crime victim increased to 1 in 25, and the chance of being a victim of a violent crime was 1 in 276. Throughout the '70s, the anti-punishment philosophy prevailed. By 1980, America had become better educated, better fed and better housed, but it also was a far more dangerous place to live. The chance of being the victim of a violent crime was 1 in 168. There were 13.4 million reported crimes -- 1 in 10 of them violent. Fear made people alter their lives. Social order had practically collapsed. The public was finally fed up and demanded protection from crime and criminals. State legislatures throughout America responded with get-tough crime bills that imposed mandatory prison terms for violent and persistent felony offenders. Criminals were sent to prison. The change from social programs back to punishment and incarceration worked. The crime rate slowed, then began dropping. By 1990, it had returned to pre-1980 numbers and has continued to drop since. We want all criminals to be rehabilitated and become good citizens and contributors to their communities when they return to society. And everyone hopes prisoners take advantage of drug treatment and job training in and out of penal institutions. But citizens' safety and security must always come first. History has shown that leniency results in unrelenting increases in crime and that punishment lowers crime rates. Those who would eliminate punishment and incarceration and return to a social service response or even put a price tag on Kentuckians' safety must bear the enormous moral burden of the injuries, deaths and losses of those who will become victims of the criminals left on our streets. - --- MAP posted-by: Larry Seguin