'Responsible' is beyond Mr. Ozmint's reach

Jon Ozmint's plan to lop a couple of months off the terms of nearly all prisoners so he can close down prisons and save money is not a responsible one. But the Legislature's unwillingness to deal with dangerously underfunded prisons in a responsible way has made this the least irresponsible option he has.

"Responsible" is beyond Mr. Ozmint's reach; that requires legislative action — such as changing our sentencing laws so that all but the violent prisoners are sent through alternative programs (which are substantially cheaper, and have substantially higher success rates). This would begin to save money almost immediately, as prisoners began to finish their terms and be released faster than new ones were brought in.

"Responsible" also could mean providing enough money to hire enough guards to keep prisoners safe from each other and us safe from them. We understand why legislators don't like this option. Frankly, we don't consider it a smart option: Better to use tax dollars to keep people from becoming prisoners to begin with, through better education, job training and drug treatment programs, than to pay for their 24/7 care. State revenues are plunging, and nobody wants to lay off teachers or troopers or cut off needed drugs for poor children in order to pay for more prison guards. For that matter, we understand why, even when money was coming in at or above projections, legislators preferred to fund those services that non-criminals use, rather than sending more money to the prisons. ...

Legislators worry that supporting alternative sentences will make them look soft on crime. But as Mr. Ozmint's desperation proposal illustrates, we've reached a point financially where there will have to be fewer people in our prisons. We can lower that number in a haphazard, irresponsible way, through furloughs, or we can do it in a smart way, by making sure we only imprison those people who need to be behind bars. That is not a tough choice.

The (Columbia) State