Give back judges' role in sentencing:

Mandatory guidelines jail nonviolent offenders with the worst criminals

Delaware has an outstanding corrections commissioner. Its judges are nationally recognized. It spends more per capita on corrections than any other state. In 2001, it completed the largest prison construction project in Delaware history, a four-year, $180 million expansion. Already plans are being discussed for an additional facility.

The General Assembly has created an enlightened commission on sentence accountability called SENTAC, which it has directed to consider incapacitation of the violence-prone offender, restoration of the victim and rehabilitation of the offender.

One would expect with those assets, our prison system ought to be a model for the rest of the country. But in 2004, a horrific episode at the Smyrna prison jolted us to the realization that there is something amiss with the system.

The rape of a prison counselor and the killing of her assailant were not the fault of the governor nor the commissioner. An argument can be made that the bloated prison population and overworked corrections staff were contributing factors in those tragic events.

Unfortunately, laws dealing with drug use, possession, distribution and manufacturing are not consistent with the SENTAC goal of incapacitation of violence-prone offenders. As a result, the model sentencing concepts of SENTAC cannot be implemented.

No way out

Many of those laws imposed mandatory minimum sentences for violators. A mandatory minimum sentence negates the determination of a judge as to who should be imprisoned and who should be subjected to other forms of punishment.

The result is that the role of the judge in determining jail time is eliminated; those convicted automatically go to prison. Over the last 20 years, the number of people imprisoned has increased. Some of those imprisoned are not violence prone.

In 1981, Delaware housed 1,562 inmates. Today, the prison population is 6,600.

Mixing non-violent offenders with those prone to violence has resulted in a diverse and large prison population. The increase in sheer size requires more maintenance and corrections manpower.

Serious consideration should be given to repealing the mandatory sentencing provisions that relate to prisoners who are not violence prone.

If those mandatory sentencing provisions were to be repealed, Delaware judges would resume their role of determining who is held in jail and when alternative punishment is better. The potential for savings to the state would be millions of dollars.

The corrections system would be better able to deal with those required to be imprisoned if non-violent drug offenders could be removed and subjected to more appropriate punishment.

Easing the prison population explosion would allow the prison system to function more effectively, and permit better staff compensation and training. The training could be oriented on how to deal with violent individuals.

To be sure, public safety should not be compromised to save dollars. On the other hand, if it is true that we needlessly incarcerate hundreds of people, then we are wasting millions. These dollars could be effectively spent to improve police capabilities in Wilmington and New Castle, Kent and Sussex counties. Some of those saved dollars could be spent to prevent recidivism by treating people who get in trouble because of substance abuse. Some of those saved dollars could be spent to improve operations of the Corrections Department.

Reducing the number of prisoners would certainly permit more careful regulation of violent offenders. More effective use of correction officers would make it possible to improve working conditions, compensation and training in a dangerous and tedious occupation.