To the Editor:

The General Assembly is poised to save Rhode Island from evil – once again.

In the 1980s legislators "solved" one crime problem by inventing mandatory minimum prison sentences for drug offenses. They decreed minimum sentences of 10, 20 and 50 years for possession of modest amounts of controlled substances. (Not wanting to overlook anything, the House even voted to imprison people for 10 years for possession of "cocoa leaves" – after the bill's sponsor told them "cocaine comes from cocoa leaves.")

Soon tough-on-crime legislators got even tougher. One crusader got the bright idea of doubling these 10-, 20- and 50-year sentences if drugs are distributed in a school. Not to be outdone, another legislator decided those double sentences should kick in if someone distributes drugs "within 300 yards of the grounds" of a school or playground. (That law remains on the books to this day.)

Rhode Island's prison population promptly doubled from 1,200 to 2,400. Today it is nearly 4,000, and the annual prison budget which was $30 million in the early 1980s is now around $190 million.

Some legislators now feel that mandatory minimum sentences were not such a great idea, and they have been trying to undo what was done in the 1980s. But it is not easy to repeal a law once it is on the books.

Anyway, the legislature has a new priority today – sex.

The R.I. House has passed a bill to “close the prostitution loophole” by outlawing indoor prostitution. If this bill becomes law, will we send police into businesses and homes to see if unmarried folk are having sex and, if so, to investigate any financial arrangements? The proposed law would imprison a woman convicted of prostitution and it would confiscate any money she had earned from “the world's oldest profession" – perhaps every dollar she has. Upon release from prison she would have no choice but to return to her only source of income, prostitution. (The bill excuses a woman if she proves that she was forced into prostitution.)

Other popular targets are sex offenders. Sex offenders who are considered at high risk for repeating their crime are subject to strict registration and monitoring after completing their prison sentences. (Incidentally convicted burglars, armed robbers and murderers are not monitored after serving their sentences.)

Last year a new idea emerged for further controlling registered sex offenders. A 2008 law banned them from living within 300 feet of a school. Thus a man who had served his sentence for a ten-year-old offense was told that he and his wife must move because a school was less than 300 feet away from their home.

At least one Rhode Island court has rejected this “ex-post-facto" punishment.

So a 2009 bill (by the same sponsor) would repeal last year's statute and instead ban registered sex offenders from entering a school or playground, regardless of whether school is in session. The R.I. Senate recently passed this unanimously. But it too has problems. If this bill became law, a convicted offender who now has a family would be subject to five years in prison for going to a school to see his child's work, to consult with the child's teacher or to attend a meeting.

But who thinks that far ahead when it comes to being tough on crime?

Rod Driver

Richmond

Rod Driver was a state representative from 1987 to 1994. In 2009 he is back in the House representing Charlestown, Exeter and Richmond.