Changes to reduce prison population won’t be easy

By RONNIE ELLIS

FRANKFORT — Thomas Whetstone, a private consultant in criminal justice, told one of the groups looking for ways to reduce prison populations in Kentucky it will be a tough job.

Whetstone spoke to the Criminal Justice Council, one of two groups studying Kentucky’s exploding jail and prison populations. A subcommittee of the General Assembly is also set to take a look at Kentucky’s 35-year-old penal code to see if it can be updated.

The problem doesn’t seem to be going away on its own. Kentucky’s felon population has grown by nearly 100 inmates since the council met last month. Corrections Commissioner Ladonna Thompson said Monday there are now 22,688 state inmates, 8,078 of them housed in county jails. Last month, the figure was 22,596.

Whetstone quoted former Supreme Court Justice John Palmore as saying a person “with steel in the spine” will be required to lead the effort to modernize the penal code in ways which do not place excessive sentences on non-violent crimes.

“There’s tremendous personal and political risk to anyone who stands up on this issue,” Whetstone said.

In a subsequent phone interview, University of Kentucky College of Law professor Robert Lawson echoed Whetstone’s appraisal. He said lawmakers and prosecutors will resist lessening penalties for offenders, even non-violent, non-sexual offenders who pose little risk to society.

And there may be resistance from county governments, which have long called for relief to their county budgets for the growing costs of jails. But most of that cost is generated by county or misdemeanor prisoners. Those state inmates housed in county jails actually bring in money in the form of per diem payments from the state. And some of the short-term measures passed by this year’s General Assembly to ease the prison population will actually remove state inmates from jails through in-home incarceration.

One of those measures allows inmates within 180 days of completing their sentences to be placed in home incarceration, monitored by Global Positioning System (GPS) devices. Thompson said ultimately those prisoners will come from county jails, either directly or because as prison beds are opened, inmates in jails will be transferred to the prisons.

Warren County Commonwealth Attorney Chris Cohron, a member of the council, asked Justice Secretary J. Michael Brown if there is a way to track the recidivism of such inmates who are taken out of jails and placed in home incarceration. He said the group should try to track those new inmates coming into the system compared with the number leaving.

“We need to look to see if this is going to save the commonwealth money or might cost us money,” Cohron said.

He was speaking of inmates released who commit subsequent crimes and end up back in jail for longer periods of time – some of which will be paid by counties before the inmate is sentenced.

Vince Lang, executive director of the Kentucky County Judge/Executives Association, said it likely would cost counties – twice.

“It’ll cost us both ways – we’re going to lose a Class D (and the state per diem) and then we’ll get them back (when they commit subsequent crimes),” he said.

Thompson said that isn’t likely to happen. Non-violent, Class D and Class C felons who are within 180 days of completing their sentence can serve out that remaining time through in-home incarceration. Thompson said if they commit another crime during that time, they will still be under state control and supervision and would remain the financial responsibility of the state throughout.

Brown reviewed for the council several changes in-serted into the state budget and provisions of House Bill 683 which affect corrections and the council’s charge to seek ways to reduce the inmate population without endangering the public.

Among those is increasing the size of the parole board by two members which should produce more reviews and likely more paroles; a requirement that non-violent, non–sexual offenders be reviewed for parole after serving 15 percent of their sentences; credit for education and substance abuse programs; and for good behavior.

Lawson, who wrote much of the state’s penal code in the mid-1970s but who has criticized enhancements and stiffer penalties which have been added since then, said he’s “a little bit encouraged.” He has been trying to raise awareness for several years now about the problem of longer and longer sentences for less serious crimes and the impact that has on inmates and prison populations.

“There is some movement and that is new,” Lawson said. “But they’re going to have to face up to some basic problems in the penal code.”

Or as Whetstone summed up what Lawson told him: “The criteria (for sentencing) ought to be: Are we afraid of them or are we just mad at them?”

The council will meet again on July 9.

Ronnie Ellis writes for CNHI News Service and is based in Frankfort. He may be contacted by e-mail at rellis@cnhi.com.