Editorial from Montgomery Advertiser - Smart rather than tough

[danielle]

Opinion - Jan. 23, 2003
Montgomery, Alabama


EDITORIAL
Smart better than tough


One line from an official's inaugural remarks deserves the attention of the new governor and every other Alabamian because it has huge implications for the state.

Most of the attention during Monday's inaugurals was focused on Gov. Bob Riley, and rightly so. However, one line from another official's inaugural remarks deserves the attention of the new governor and every other Alabamian because it has huge implications for the state.

The speaker was Bill Pryor, who took the oath Monday for his second term as attorney general. The line: "We need to stop declaring that we are going to be tough on crime and instead be smart on crime."

There's a lot for this state to consider in those few words. In trying to be "tough on crime," a stance many Alabama politicians reflexively adopt any time an election nears, Alabama has instead often been tough on itself -- tough in the sense of imposing on itself heavy costs and seemingly intractable long-term problems of prison overcrowding. For all that effort and expense, the Advertiser doubts that Alabamians feel notably safer.

Pryor has been a steadfast proponent of sentencing reform, which is one way Alabama can start being smart on crime. Some key questions have to be answered. What kind of punishment do we really want to hand out for criminal offenses? For offenses deemed deserving of incarceration, shouldn't we want sentences that will reflect the actual time to be served? Shouldn't we want -- indeed insist -- that similar offenses carry similar sentences, regardless of where the offense occurred?

Clearly, Alabama's sentencing system is flawed. Should offenses carry punishment in broad ranges -- two to 20 years, for example -- when that can lead to hugely varying sentences for virtually identical crimes?

And shouldn't the sentence reflect the time an individual will serve? If a 10-year sentence really means only three or four years, isn't the credibility of the court undermined? Wouldn't it make more sense to have much narrower sentencing ranges and have the sentences mean what judges say they mean when they hand them down?

Perhaps the ultimate question is the extent to which incarceration should be used. For violent offenders, there's no doubt about its fitness. But Alabama now incarcerates thousands of nonviolent offenders who pose no physical threat to society and who could serve sentences in less expensive and more productive ways.

Pryor is right. It's time -- long past time, in fact -- to start being smart on crime.