Jail breakdown

Kevin Eugene Peterson, a clearly troubled young man who described himself as paranoid schizophrenic in a televised jailhouse interview, was released from Sacramento County Jail earlier this month, 16 days before his sentence was set to expire. He was back behind bars after less than a day, charged with sexually assaulting a homeless-services worker.

Peterson is now Exhibit A in the highly politicized case against the state’s early release law, passed in September against the backdrop of a crushing state budget deficit and a federal court order to reduce the prison population. Opponents, mostly Republicans, are calling for a halt to early releases at the county level. They aren’t necessarily wrong, but they’re not quite right either. The real problem stems from Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown’s failure to interpret the law so it can be properly carried out.

A Times analysis reveals that more than 1,500 inmates have been released early from county jails since the law took effect Jan. 25. It is not clear whether any of them, including Peterson, should have gotten out. Lawyers disagree on whether the law, aimed at state prisons, ought to apply to county jails at all. There is even stronger disagreement over the way it should be applied.

Jail inmates can already cut a third of the time from their sentences through credits for good behavior, but under the new law, nonviolent offenders can cut their sentences by half. Some counties are applying the good-behavior credits only to time served after Jan. 25, while others are applying them retroactively to time served before that. In addition to Sacramento County, Orange, Ventura, Riverside and San Bernardino counties have let hundreds of inmates loose early. Officials in L.A. County, meanwhile, haven’t implemented any early releases.

This is a mess, and Brown is empowered to fix it by explaining how the law should be applied -- yet so far, his office has been silent. He needs to address the issue soon.

But we can’t end there without decrying the demagoguery over Peterson. The purpose of last year’s prison reform law was to cut the state inmate population by about 6,500. It does this in part through good-behavior credits, but mainly by revising parole rules to stop returning nonviolent offenders to prison for minor parole violations.

In theory, this should actually reduce crime, because it will free up parole officials to focus more attention on truly dangerous people. Yet the crimes that are avoided because parole officers are working more efficiently don’t make headlines. That’s why it’s foolish to set corrections policy based on sensational cases. California’s efforts to reduce its prison population should be judged on their effect on overall crime, not their portrayal on the evening news.