Harsh Realities

Releasing prisoners early in states facing budget woes is a practice that's drawing a lot of fire from the public.  To this I say "Tax cuts, mandatory minimum sentencing, three strikes laws and overcrowded prisons have consequences."

Last week, figures from the U.S. Department of Justice indicated that in 2008 the growth of the prison population was slower than in any year since 2000. Some experts say the slowdown confirms that states are reconsidering their sentencing policies.

Oregon now allows low-risk inmates to earn reductions of up to 30 percent off their original sentence instead of 20 percent. In November, Illinois began early release of inmates who committed non-violent crimes. The state plans to release 1,000 inmates, which could save $5 million a year, said Januari Smith, an Illinois Department of Corrections spokeswoman.

"We have been very thorough in selecting offenders," Smith said.

Colorado loosened its corrections policies this year by letting non-violent offenders earn 12 days off their sentence for each month of good behavior. Previously, the limit was 10 days. Inmates who break the rules in prison -- even once -- are not eligible, according a spokesperson from the Colorado Department of Corrections.

In Mississippi, a state with one of the highest incarceration levels, officials abandoned a 180-day cap on the amount of time an inmate's sentence can be shortened. This year, a panel of federal judges ordered California to reduce its prison population by 40,000 because of overcrowding. Governor Schwarzenegger proposed releasing 27,000 inmates.

It is often controversial to pass laws that shorten inmates' sentences. Such a move seemed impossible at the height of tough-on-crime sentiment in the 1980s and 1990s.

"It's a big shift, and I think it's coming about because states and counties are having problems with finances," said Doris MacKenzie, a criminologist who specializes in sentencing policy at Pennsylvania State University. "All of the sudden they are thinking: 'Do we really need to lock up so many for such a long period of time?'

News flash, America.  It costs money to lock people up for decades. You think government is bad.  You think government is wasting money.  You want entitlements and services, but you don't want to pay for them.  Above all, you don't ever, ever, ever want to raise taxes, for any reason, even for ones like keeping inmates in jail.

Hence, consequences.  Only money could force states not to lock people up for most of their lives.

Here endeth the lesson.