Article published February 27, 2007

State and local authorities struggle as failed state policies lead to more crowding

State corrections officials and local jail directors are fighting over who has to take criminals who have been sentenced to prison.

The answer would seem simple. When someone is arrested and awaiting trial, they are housed in a local jail. Once they have been convicted, they are sentenced to spend time in the state prison system and should be transferred there.

But the prisons are overcrowded. Taking more will only add to the problem. So state Corrections Department Director Jon Ozmint has imposed limits on how many new inmates the state will take from each county each week.

That doesn't solve the problem. It merely shifts the burden onto counties, many of which already have overcrowded jails. Now, conditions at county jails are getting worse while inmates who should be transferred to prison literally pile up on triple-tiered bunk beds.

This problem wasn't created by Ozmint or local jail officials. It was created by the General Assembly. For years, state lawmakers sought to prove their tough-on-crime credentials by imposing tougher and longer mandatory sentences for various crimes and criminal histories.

At the same time, they were unwilling to spend money for new or bigger prisons. Allocating money for prisons doesn't carry the same benefit as more money for schools or roads or other state priorities.

Somehow, they didn't see the crisis coming or simply decided to ignore it. But it will have to be dealt with.

Lawmakers will have to spend money on new prisons.

The state can't simply keep stuffing more inmates into already overcrowded prisons and demand that the Corrections Department keep order.

Lawmakers also should look at alternative sentences. Lengthy prison sentences are suitable for violent criminals, those who degrade the safety of the general public, but not all offenders.

The state should make greater use of drug courts and treatment for drug offenders. It should use house arrest and restitution for other nonviolent offenders.

Putting these people in prison is not only too much direct expense for taxpayers, it is doubly costly when it breaks up families and pushes them into poverty.

The state has to provide an adequate prison system that should be dedicated toward violent criminals while it deals with nonviolent offenders in more constructive ways. Lawmakers have ignored this need, but Ozmint may be building their awareness.