The crimes for which the 20 North Carolina prison inmates were convicted, back in the 1970s, run a gamut of violence, from first-degree murder to kidnapping and rape. Now they're on track to be released later this month. No wonder there's understandable outrage -- Governor Perdue calls the situation appalling -- and worry.
Understandable yes, but this matter calls for an informed understanding of what's going on. And what's going on is the rule of law.
The law, it turns out, is on these aging inmates' side. So says the unanimous N.C. Court of Appeals panel that heard a challenge from one of them last year (an opinion written by a conservative-leaning judge with an impeccable anti-crime background) and so affirms the state Supreme Court. Perdue has asked the N.C. Department of Justice "to review all options available to the state to reverse and delay" the Supreme Court ruling, but the legal questions appear to have been decided.
The best the state can do now is to help the inmates, who range in age from 48 to 68 and who have been behind bars for at least 30 years, make the smoothest possible return to society, and to monitor them as much as the law allows. (Although a statement from the Governor's Office said none of the 20 can be "subject to any kind of monitoring or post-release supervision," some will have to register as sex offenders and one will have 20 years of federal parole supervision.) While these convicts are far older than the average active criminal, there's always the possibility that they'll do harm again.
That's unfortunate, but the situation stems directly from past legislative votes to change criminal penalties, in line with contemporary thinking about the effectiveness and appropriateness of various sentences.
Today, when a sentence of "life in prison" means just that (there's no parole), and when life sentences are reserved for first-degree murderers, it may be hard to recall that "life" didn't always mean life. Parole was a real possibility. Furthermore, a previous definition of a life sentence as being 80 years -- long enough, you'd think -- turned out to be crucial in winning these inmates' release.
That 80-year standard applied for a few years in the 1970s, when these inmates did their crimes. Then in 1981 the legislature retroactively -- repeat, retroactively -- halved existing sentences. Subtract from 40 years the several years of credits that inmates could earn for good behavior, etc., and this group has now served their "full" sentences.
Keep them locked up regardless? The Constitution simply does not permit the state to impose punishments greater than those that were in effect at the time of the crime. That's the rule of law, which we all say we cherish. Even at times like this.
