PD Editorial: Getting smarter about crime, punishment

The differences between Democrats and Republicans, progressives and conservatives are vast, as anyone paying even cursory attention to the unfolding presidential campaign can attest.

So it’s noteworthy when there are signs of common ground on anything more controversial than motherhood or apple pie.

One such subject may be criminal justice reform.

With about 4 percent of the world’s population, the U.S. has about 20 percent of its inmates. That’s largely a by-product of tough-on-crime legislation passed in the 1980s and 1990s that produced budget-busting incarceration costs, stubbornly high recidivism rates and plenty of human misery.

The solution isn’t getting soft on crime. It’s getting smarter about punishment.

Violent criminals and drug lords deserve long sentences. But mandatory sentences for many nonviolent crimes are far out of proportion to the harm caused, and too many inmates return from prison as better criminals rather than rehabilitated offenders. A smarter approach starts with less arbitrary sentences, includes more abundant rehabilitation options and gives judges and parole boards greater flexibility.

Supporters of criminal justice reform can be found all across the political spectrum, from the American Civil Liberties Union to conservative billionaire David Koch. There is resistance from prosecutors, correctional officers and law-and-order politicians, but some law enforcement leaders see the wisdom in the reform movement, which is gaining strength in Washington and in state capitals around the country.

On Jan. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed its 2012 prohibition on mandatory life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders and made its effect retroactive, with a mix of liberal and conservative judges in the majority.

On the same day, President Barack Obama announced a ban on solitary confinement for juvenile offenders in federal penitentiaries. For adult inmates, he limited solitary confinement to 60 days for a first infraction, down from 365 days.

In the U.S. Senate, John Cornyn of Texas, a former judge, is lobbying fellow Republicans to support legislation that would shorten some mandatory minimum sentences and allow inmates serving longer terms to petition for early release. His own state, renowned for its conservative leanings, has expanded drug treatment and pre-trial diversion programs for the mentally ill as part of an effort to reduce its incarceration rate.

California reduced prison crowding and updated solitary confinement policies to settle lawsuits filed on behalf of inmates, and voters have reduced some felonies to misdemeanors and revised the state’s “three strikes” law.

Gov. Jerry Brown announced a new proposal last week, pledging to use some of his $24 million in surplus campaign money for a ballot initiative that would create incentives for inmates to complete rehabilitation programs and give judges greater discretion over sentencing as well as whether juvenile offenders get tried as adults.

For Brown, it’s a 180-degree reversal from legislation he signed during his first gubernatorial term that switched California from flexible prison sentences determined by judges and parole boards to rigid sentences dictated by legislative statutes and, in some instances, ballot initiatives.

Most prison inmates will be released one day, and communities will be better off if they’re rehabilitated before re-entry. That’s a worthy bipartisan goal.