Someone ought to grease the exit doors on Nevada's prisons - they may be getting plenty of use in the coming months.
A total of 1,602 inmates - 12 percent of the state's prison population - will be eligible for parole hearings in February. That's great news if you see the world through dollar signs ... it means the prison population will decline and so will the costs of housing them. We also can delay construction on new prison units, a cost estimated at $2 billion.
If you believe the assurances of the Legislature and some prison officials, it's a win from a public safety standpoint as well because these are non-violent criminals, the ones least likely to be a danger to society.
Somehow, we don't feel as good about that last point, especially knowing the reservations expressed by some prosecutors and members of law enforcement when the Legislature passed AB150, which doubled the credits inmates get for good behavior and created the backlog of inmates eligible for parole. After all, they're the ones who should know the risk posed by these criminals - those officers put their lives on the line to arrest them in the first place.
Many of these inmates had victims and their crimes helped destroy lives. If you pay attention to recidivism rates, we'll be doing well if only one in four of them ends up back in prison after taking more victims.
And what's to stop them from committing more crimes - the same action that set them free early also shot holes in the notion that crime doesn't pay. Nevada isn't the only state backing away from that 1990s notion of getting "tough on crime." It's good in theory, but it's expensive.
Keeping nonviolent offenders out of jail is not a bad idea in that we stand to gain more if they are contributing members of society. But there's a cost in monitoring them and helping them acquire the life skills they lack, including operating treatment programs for drug addiction. That means more people are needed in the state's probation system and more programs to ensure the worst of them are not playing the system as they return to lives of crime.
In other words, this shouldn't be viewed as a clear cut opportunity to save $2 billion on prison construction. What we save should be $2 billion minus the cost of a sufficient safety net that will protect Nevada residents.
A commission working on that net gives strong indications it's not close to being in place yet. They found a lack of substance abuse, mental health and sex offender counseling programs around the state.
And a 2003 study indicated we already spend less on prison and justice system programs than any other state.
The Nevadans who stand to be the victims of those who reoffend, (not to mention those the inmates have already victimized) deserve those assurances.
• This editorial represents the view of the Nevada Appeal Editorial Board.