Funding support needed to eliminate early releases

The state of South Carolina shouldn't put law-abiding citizens at reckless and potentially fatal risk by releasing violent criminals who have served only a small percentage of their prison terms. Yet it still does in some cases, as documented in thorough, heartbreaking and occasionally infuriating detail by a five-day Post and Courier series that ended Thursday. And though abolishing parole for violent offenders sounds inviting, it wouldn't be a simple task — or necessarily the best way to solve this problem.

Such a plan couldn't be implemented without triggering difficult consequences unless lawmakers provide major funding for overdue improvements to several other related government duties.

State Attorney General Henry McMaster proposes requiring all offenders to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences. (Currently, prisoners serving sentences of 20 years or more already must serve at least 85 percent.) The attorney general also proposes creating a "middle court" that would generally sentence most non-violent offenders to short terms or probation. Mr. McMaster's plan warrants comprehensive scrutiny from the General Assembly.

Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston, told us Friday that the matter will get such careful review in the 2009 legislative session as a "high priority" issue. He said he wants to eliminate parole, too. Yet the senator, who also is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, added that multiple challenges block the path to that goal, and that reaching it will require a "holistic approach" addressing a wide range of ongoing deficiencies in the state's criminal justice system.

Those shortcomings include a clogged court system, already-overcrowded jails and prisons, and a parole and probation agency overwhelmed by vast case loads. The findings of a sentencing reform commission also should play a critical role in recommending solutions.

"We've got to look beyond that to the entire sentencing apparatus and the size of the prisons," Sen. McConnell said. "You've got to look at all of the problems. If you're going to build a consensus to do it, that consensus goes to the responsibility to fund it. It takes success on multiple fronts."

One of those fronts is the jammed court system. Money will be needed to add judges, expand the indigent-defense system and retain experienced prosecutors. As the senator put it: "You can't have trials unless you have lawyers."

There also is a need for sentencing reforms for non-violent crimes and rehabilitation programs that will cut recidivism.

Corrections Department chief Jon Ozmint has repeatedly warned that ending parole could impose a crushing burden on his already-strained prison system. He told our reporter: "To do something we know will add 12,000 new prisoners to the system in the next 19 years is an invitation to real disaster. You simply could not fit that many inmates in the prisons we have. If you did, you will end up with a lot of dead bodies on your hands."

However, if we keep releasing violent criminals early, and without proper supervision, we'll end up with dead bodies that way, too.

Mr. McMaster says the state of Virginia's decision to end parole 14 years ago offers a positive example to follow, particularly since crime declined as a result. The prudent course is to examine that program and those of other states to see what has and hasn't worked, and why.

Legislators also should examine the possibility that we can seriously reduce risks by keeping parole and fixing the flaws in a poorly funded justice system.

South Carolinians calling for a halt to parole for violent offenders — or any other means to ease their menace — should expect that a substantial expenditure of taxpayer money will be needed to produce results. But a system that fails to protect its citizens from brutal criminals inflicts a painful price of its own.