'Smart on crime' is a better tactic

Published online on Wednesday, Sep. 09, 2009

I wonder if anyone running for office in California next year will have the courage to cast aside the three easiest words in politics: tough on crime.

We've been cracking down on crime, throwing away the key and blowing through piles of tax dollars since the 1970s and, really, does anyone feel safer?

California's prison system might be the worst in the nation with its sky-high recidivism rate and annual cost of $49,000 an inmate. Almost without exception, the only education prisoners receive are Ph.Ds in criminal and gang activity.

Clearly, it's time for something that protects law-abiding citizens and the public treasury, too. But are any politicians brave enough to drop the tough-on-crime charade and replace it with a new approach?

If there is, here's a suggested catch phrase: smart on crime. That means allowing sentences that are more creative than simply locking up all lawbreakers.

I'll be the first to admit that running a prison is difficult, as is finding the proper balance between punishment and rehabilitation. But it's impossible to defend a system that has twice as many inmates (167,000) as its intended capacity and has been so poorly run that inmate health care is overseen by federal courts.

Meanwhile, even with two wheels in the ditch, the tough-on-crime bandwagon rolls on -- politicians defending long prison terms, opposing early releases for nonviolent offenders and offering no way to pay for new prisons, much less additional correctional officers, doctors, teachers and administrators who staff them.

The situation is hardly better at our local county jails. A federal court order dictates the capacity of the Fresno County Jail, Sheriff Margaret Mims laid off correctional officers because of a budget deficit and the county's successful juvenile boot camp was closed -- also because of cost cutting. Tulare County is looking at adding 1,100 beds over the next decade and will need $1.27 billion to house inmates over the next 20 years.

Here too, the tough-on-crime bandwagon rolls on, with local candidates -- much like their state counterparts -- afraid to be labeled as soft on crime.

I don't expect the smart-on-crime approach to catch on quickly, not with the heinous acts of parolee and registered sex offender Phillip Garrido disgusting people coast to coast. But California's leaders should find out what other states are doing to lower costs and to stop their prisons from being incubators for more crime. They should consider the merits of halfway houses, drug treatment, mental-illness treatment and educational/vocational schools for inmates. They should give judges greater latitude to decide sentences case by case. And, yes, they should lobby federal officials for immigration enforcement that keeps foreign law-breakers out of our state.

Maybe we should even think about whether big fines, instead of prison, make sense for some crimes. For example, a convicted burglar could go to vocational school and pay off the fine, as well as program costs, over 10 years -- same as a college student pays off federal loans.

Finally, if our leaders believe that the tough-on-crime measures enacted over the past 30 years are still the way to go, voters should demand that they explain how California and its counties will pay the ever-mounting tab for keeping hundreds of thousands of inmates locked up.

Saying that you're tough on crime is easy. Demonstrating that you're smart on crime is difficult.