Cries of protest — 04/15/08

Fri, May 16 2008

— The protests of prosecutors to the General Assembly’s rather modest plan to assign some non-violent felons to home incarceration during the final months of their sentences provides an early indication of just how difficult meaningful prison reform will be to achieve in Kentucky.
Pitted against legislators alarmed by the cost of Kentucky’s soaring prison population are commonwealth’s attorneys and county attorneys elected on “get tough on crime” platforms. Instead of reducing the state’s prison population, some seem to support throwing even more people into prison for longer periods.
In an effort to control soaring prison costs, legislators approved a plan as part of the biennium budget that would allow some inmates convicted of non-violent and non-sexual offenses to finish their sentences in home incarceration. To listen to the reaction of some prosecutors, one would think hardened felons will soon be incarcerated at home instead of being behind prison walls. Nothing of the sort is even contemplated.
Chris Cohron, commonwealth’s attorney for Warren County and president-elect of the Kentucky Commonwealth’s Attorney Association, said the legislature’s proposal is shortsighted, lacking in specifics and dangerous. He and other prosecutors say the plan jeopardizes public safety.
However, since the details of the plan have yet to be worked out, to criticize it as being dangerous strikes us as premature overreaction.
First of all, only Class C and Class D felons would be eligible for home incarceration. During their home incarceration, one assumes that steps would be taken to assure that they remain in the home. While being confined to one’s home certainly is better than being behind bars, not being able to leave the house still is a form of confinement that is not pleasant.
The biggest appeal of home incarceration is the amount of money it will save. A Senate study found that if 2,000 inmates were assigned to home incarceration — a number that strikes us as high — it would save the state $50 million a year.
In addition to the amount of money it would save the state, advocates argue home incarceration would help inmates adjust to life outside of prison by placing them in a home setting. That lowers the odds of them committing new crimes and returning to prison.
Eligibility for home incarceration would not be automatic. Rep. Kathy Stein, D-Lexington, House Judiciary chairwoman and a member of the state Criminal Justice Council, said eligible prisoners would be “vetted completely and thoroughly” before their release.
“What we’re doing is not working,” said Rep. Robin Webb, D-Grayson, a trial attorney. “There’s a difference between tough on crime and smart on crime.”
She’s right. Being “tough on crime” has resulted in overcrowded prisons and jails with many inmates serving time for relatively minor offenses directly linked to drug use. It is costly and it hasn’t worked. It is time we got “smart on crime.”