If sentences issued under 1992 guidelines were inappropriate, they should be corrected.

Wise leaders gain credibility by being able to admit when they are wrong. That’s more or less what happened last year when Kansas legislators threw out the “three-strikes” law and sentencing guidelines approved by lawmakers in 1992. Those guidelines required that people convicted on three drug offenses be sentenced to serve life sentences in prison.

The new guidelines, which went into effect in November 2003, call for most drug offenders to be sent to treatment programs rather than prison. A third offense still can result in a prison sentence of up to 18 months.

The new guidelines were, perhaps, at least partially prompted by a concern for prison crowding in the state and a wish to avoid appropriating funds to construct new prison space. But they also represented a recognition that punishing drug offenders by putting them in prison is only part of the goal. Prison time may serve a purpose, but the best chance of rehabilitating offenders, especially drug offenders, and keeping them from repeating their crimes is to force them into a treatment program.

By revising the sentencing guidelines, legislators were admitting that the previous guidelines weren’t appropriate or beneficial, but they didn’t go quite far enough. They didn’t make the bill retroactive so it would correct what the 2003 Legislature had determined to be unjust sentences doled out for the previous 10 years. That means that three drug offenders currently serving life sentences apparently will remain in prison although they already have served more than the maximum 18 months their crimes would earn them now.

A retroactive review of cases could affect more than 900 Kansas inmates currently serving prison time for one, two or three drug offenses. Some legislators admit that the idea of making the sentencing changes retroactive has fallen through the cracks this year. Others contend that the state should wait to see how well the treatment programs work before reviewing earlier cases.

That is the cautious approach, but it also represents a basic unfairness to people currently serving prison terms. If the state is willing to shift to a treatment model for drug offenders convicted today, it should be willing to review earlier cases and apply the same standard. Denying such a review may not be quite the same, but it’s close to deciding to keep someone convicted of a crime in prison in spite of the fact he or she has been cleared by new evidence. A mistake was made, and it needs to be corrected.

Although they often are portrayed as “victimless crimes,” drug offenses are a serious matter often linked to other criminal activity. In such cases, more severe punishments are appropriate. However, in cases of simple drug possession, the best way to correct the problem and curb drug trafficking probably is through treatment of the offender.

Legislators seem to agree that a sentencing mistake was made in 1992; it’s only fair that they now fully correct it.