By Jay Dellinger, Publisher

In the first part of this series, I questioned whether punishment alone is enough to change criminal behavior. This time, I want to move beyond the question and discuss solutions.

What could we actually change in our courts, prisons and communities to stop someone from committing another crime? More importantly, what could we do to keep another person from becoming a victim?

I am not suggesting that we excuse criminal behavior or give dangerous offenders a free pass. I am suggesting we stop measuring success only by arrests and prison sentences. We ought to measure whether our decisions make the public safer a year, five years or even ten years later. And if a person will eventually return to society, we should use that time to help them become someone less likely to harm another person.

Give First-Time Offenders One Structured Chance Before a Public Court Record

What if North Carolina established what we might call a Second-Chance Court for carefully selected first-time, low-level, nonviolent offenses?

In appropriate cases, the process could begin before an arrest or formal charge. Instead of immediately creating a public criminal court case, a qualified individual could agree to a supervised program requiring community service, restitution, counseling, education or job training.

Someone who completes the requirements could avoid a public criminal court record for that incident. Authorized justice officials would still need a confidential way to track prior participation and any other records would remain subject to applicable law.

This would be a one-time opportunity under clear rules, not an escape from accountability. Someone who refuses or fails the program could face the regular legal process with all ordinary rights and protections. A later offense could prevent another diversion opportunity but would not automatically reopen a case that had already been legally resolved.

Serious violent offenses, domestic violence and cases presenting substantial safety risks should not qualify. Victims should be heard and restitution should matter. A participant's inability to pay should not be confused with an unwillingness to make things right.

Florida already authorizes prearrest diversion for certain misdemeanors. North Carolina has some diversion and expungement procedures but creating broader precharge protections or a new court structure would require the proper legal authority. This is a proposal for lawmakers, prosecutors, law enforcement and defense attorneys to develop together.

Treat Dangerous Repeat Offending Differently From a First Mistake

We should stop treating every person in the criminal justice system as though they pose the same risk.

Someone who makes a nonviolent mistake should not automatically be placed on the same path as someone repeatedly committing serious assaults, armed robberies or other dangerous offenses. Courts and correctional officials should use individual assessments, offense history and professional judgment to decide who needs intensive supervision, who needs treatment and who can safely be held accountable in the community.

For people at high risk of serious violence, law enforcement can use an approach called focused deterrence. The idea is to identify the small number of individuals most closely connected with repeated violence, explain the consequences of continued offending and offer an immediate path into employment, treatment and other assistance.

That offer of help does not replace enforcement. It works alongside it. A federal research review found that communities using focused-deterrence strategies experienced reductions in crime compared with comparison areas.

Police can also concentrate problem-solving efforts in specific locations where violence repeatedly occurs rather than treating an entire neighborhood as a problem. That requires careful oversight to protect residents' rights and build trust.

Treat People in Prison as Students, Not Just Prisoners

Here is a change I believe could transform the purpose of incarceration: What if we treated the people who will eventually return to society more like students than people whose only role is to serve time?

If we treat people only as prisoners, that may become the only identity we allow them to develop. We should treat them as students who are expected to learn, grow and demonstrate responsibility.

A prison sentence takes away freedom. It should not take away the opportunity to learn. Prison is still a secure environment with rules and consequences. But within those walls, learning should be a daily expectation rather than an occasional privilege or a way to fill empty hours.

I would like to see dedicated learning centers inside correctional facilities. Upon entering prison, every person could receive an educational and practical-skills assessment and an individualized learning plan, adjusted for their abilities, sentence, security needs and expected release date. Someone without a diploma should have the chance to earn one. Someone who already has an education should have a meaningful next step, whether that is a trade credential, college coursework or advanced life-skills instruction.

But this needs to be about much more than earning a diploma. We should teach practical ethics and the responsibilities that allow people to live together safely: honesty, respect for other people's rights, accountability, empathy, healthy relationships, consent, nonviolent conflict resolution and an understanding of how crime affects victims, families and whole communities. These lessons should emphasize shared moral values, personal responsibility and an understanding of right and wrong. Religious faith can also play an important role in personal growth and rehabilitation by providing moral guidance, hope, purpose and encouragement to change. Faith-based education, counseling and mentorship should be available to those who voluntarily choose to participate while respecting the individual beliefs and freedoms of others. The goal should be to provide individuals with the moral guidance, education and practical life skills necessary to become responsible, productive and compassionate members of society.

Imagine workbooks, group discussions, written reflections and realistic exercises that ask students to handle ordinary situations: an argument with a coworker, a disagreement at home, pressure from friends, a tempting shortcut or a moment when someone feels disrespected. What are the consequences of each choice? Who could be hurt? How could the situation be handled differently? Learning should involve practice, feedback and evidence of progress rather than simply sitting through a lecture.

We should also teach the things people must understand to function in modern society. That means handling money, paying bills, recognizing scams, applying for jobs, using computers, communicating with employers, parenting responsibly and finding medical care. It means learning how to access legitimate services and understanding both the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

And learning cannot stop at what the world looked like when someone entered prison. A person serving a long sentence could return to a society transformed by smartphones, online hiring, digital banking, artificial intelligence and changing workplace expectations. With secure, appropriately supervised educational technology, current-events instruction and regular updates to the curriculum, people could keep pace with the world rather than emerge years behind it.

Work should be part of that educational mission too. Supervised jobs in prison should lead to useful skills and recognized credentials where possible, not simply keep people busy. Fairly structured earnings could help with restitution, family obligations and savings for release while protecting participants against exploitation.

North Carolina already offers academic, vocational and life-skills education in its prisons. The state reports partnerships with community colleges and programs addressing social skills, decision-making and financial management. The proposal is to make continuous, individualized education and practical civic learning a central part of the experience, not to pretend that nothing exists today.

The evidence gives us a reason to take correctional education seriously. A RAND review of prior studies found that participants in correctional education had lower odds of reoffending than nonparticipants. That does not prove every new moral-education class would work. Any new curriculum should therefore be evaluated for learning gains, behavior changes, employment after release and actual reductions in repeat offenses.

We could require regular progress reviews and provide certificates or transcripts that are useful on the outside. As release approaches, lessons could shift toward real-world practice: a job interview, a housing application, a family budget and a plan for handling stress without turning to crime.

The goal should not be to return people to the community exactly as they were when they entered prison. The goal should be to give them the knowledge, judgment and opportunities to make different choices so there are fewer future victims.

Let Demonstrated Progress Count Toward a Second Chance

What if progress in those learning centers could lead to something more meaningful than a certificate? For carefully eligible cases, I believe lawmakers should consider allowing people to earn additional sentence credit by demonstrating sustained growth, not just attending classes or staying out of trouble.

A person might complete educational goals, demonstrate improved decision-making, maintain a record of responsible conduct, participate in treatment when appropriate and prepare a verifiable plan for employment and housing. Independent reviews could examine consistent progress over time rather than letting one instructor or official make the decision alone.

This would not be an automatic reduction and it should not override victim safety. Serious violent crimes and other high-risk cases would need strict limitations or exclusions. Victims should receive any notice and participation rights required by law. People who cannot access a program because of disability, language or prison capacity should not be unfairly penalized.

North Carolina already awards certain earned-time and merit-time credits. Under its structured-sentencing law, earned time generally cannot shorten a felony sentence below the required minimum. A broader opportunity to earn an earlier release would therefore require changes in state law. We should discuss those changes openly rather than promise something the current system cannot legally deliver.

If the purpose of prison is to correct behavior, we ought to consider whether sustained and independently verified rehabilitation should sometimes matter to the length of time a person remains incarcerated.

Teach Parenting Skills and Support Families Left Behind

Many people entering prison are mothers and fathers. Some may never have learned healthy parenting themselves. Meanwhile their children and families may experience lost income, stress and the absence of someone they love. The person who committed the offense remains responsible for it but the consequences often spread far beyond that person.

Learning centers should offer practical parenting courses on child development, positive discipline, communication, responsibility, conflict resolution and how to rebuild trust. Where contact is safe and permitted, supervised family visits, letters, video contact and family counseling could help people practice what they learn.

Not every family relationship should be restored. In cases involving abuse, coercion or safety concerns, the needs and wishes of victims and children must come first. Support should also be available to caregivers and children on the outside rather than expecting families to carry the burden alone.

Before release, parents could develop a realistic plan for housing, child support, employment and reconnecting with their families when appropriate. North Carolina has offered parenting instruction in correctional settings but we should ask whether these opportunities are available to everyone who could benefit and whether support continues after release.

Our communities cannot guarantee that every person will change. We can take responsibility for offering the tools to change while continuing to hold people accountable for their decisions.

Require Treatment That Addresses Why People Reoffend

Prison sentences do not automatically teach people how to control anger, deal with addiction or make better decisions.

Evidence-based cognitive behavioral programs can help participants recognize destructive thinking patterns, manage impulses and practice different responses to conflict. The National Institute of Justice has identified this type of intervention as a promising way to reduce repeat offending.

People with substance use disorders need access to qualified treatment while incarcerated and a firm connection to care after release. For opioid addiction, that should include medications with established evidence when clinically appropriate. A large study published in 2025 found that medication treatment in jail was associated with lower overdose deaths and lower reincarceration after release.

We should also support carefully supervised research into emerging treatments for addiction and trauma, including psychedelic-assisted approaches where legally authorized. Those treatments have not been established as methods for reducing crime and should never replace proven care or be imposed on participants.

The goal should be measurable changes in behavior, not simply checking a box that says a class was attended.

Start Reentry Planning Before Someone Walks Out of Prison

We tell people to get a job and stay out of trouble after release. Then some walk out without identification, transportation, a place to sleep or a treatment appointment.

That makes very little sense if the goal is public safety.

For people scheduled for release, a practical transition plan should begin months ahead of time. It should identify where they can live, how they will get to work, which employers might interview them and how they will continue medical or addiction treatment.

For the first several months after release, a designated case manager could coordinate those services and respond before a missed appointment or housing crisis turns into a larger problem. Employers and landlords willing to participate could receive appropriate support and incentives while maintaining reasonable safety standards.

North Carolina has local reentry councils but the Department of Adult Correction's current list of state-funded councils does not include Lincoln County. Neighboring Gaston County has one. Why not build a similar coordinated partnership here involving businesses, community colleges, service providers, churches and public safety agencies?

Offer Voluntary Relocation When Returning Home Means Returning to Trouble

We should also recognize that simply sending someone back to the place they lived before prison is not always the safest or most realistic option. What happens when the only available home is surrounded by the same pressure to commit crimes, the same unsafe relationships or the same lack of jobs that contributed to their problems?

For qualified people who want a different start, North Carolina could offer a voluntary reentry relocation program. Before release, a case manager could help identify a community with suitable housing, employment opportunities, transportation and access to treatment. The plan might provide short-term rental assistance, help with a security deposit and introductions to employers or supportive housing providers. It should also include follow-up support rather than simply placing someone in another town and walking away.

The move must be individually evaluated. Some people have strong family connections and supportive communities they should not have to abandon. Others may need distance from gangs, abusive relationships or persistent criminal networks. Any placement must respect protective orders, victims' safety and the needs of the community receiving the person. No one should be relocated merely to shift a problem from one county to another.

North Carolina already offers voluntary transitional housing to some people leaving prison. Researchers also tested relocation with housing assistance in a small Maryland study and found promising but preliminary indications of reduced rearrest. The evidence is not strong enough to claim that moving by itself will stop someone from reoffending. Housing stability and the support available at the new location matter too.

People on probation or post-release supervision cannot simply move without regard to legal conditions. Address changes may require prior approval and an out-of-state move can require a formal supervision transfer. A real program would coordinate those steps before anyone leaves prison.

If we are asking people to leave crime behind, we should at least consider helping them leave an environment that repeatedly draws them back into it.

Let People Earn Relief From an Old Record

One criminal record can interfere with employment, rental applications and professional opportunities for years. That can become a serious barrier even after a person has completed every requirement of a sentence.

North Carolina already permits expungement in certain cases. I believe lawmakers should examine a broader and simpler path for eligible nonviolent offenses after a defined period without new convictions.

Where legally appropriate, qualifying records could be cleared automatically rather than requiring people to understand complicated paperwork or pay for legal assistance. There should be safeguards and exceptions for offenses that require public access or disclosure for safety-sensitive work.

We could also help employers distinguish between an old conviction and a current safety risk. If someone has worked, paid restitution where possible and stayed out of trouble for years, why should every application still feel like another sentence?

Reach Young People Before They Enter the Adult System

The best time to prevent repeat crime may be before the first serious offense ever happens.

Schools, families and community organizations could coordinate mentoring, after-school activities, conflict-resolution instruction and practical career opportunities for young people already showing signs of trouble.

For appropriate juvenile offenses, North Carolina's Teen Court model offers another example. A study examining 6,554 young people found lower subsequent offending among Teen Court participants than among comparable youth processed through other alternatives.

We should examine where these programs are available and whether more young people in Lincoln County could benefit from them. Family support and professional counseling should be offered when the underlying issues are more serious than a one-time mistake.

Put Victims at the Center of Every Decision

None of these proposals means much if we forget the people harmed by crime.

Victims should receive prompt information about their rights, practical safety planning and help accessing restitution or other available assistance. People facing an ongoing threat need an effective response from law enforcement and the courts.

For eligible cases, voluntary restorative justice meetings may help some victims explain the harm they experienced and receive answers or accountability. New Zealand uses this approach in some circumstances. Participation should never be required and it must not replace protective measures where intimidation or ongoing danger is a concern.

We should also pay attention to repeat victimization. If a family, business or neighborhood has been targeted several times, agencies should coordinate ways to address the specific risk rather than waiting for another incident.

Use Lincoln County as a Place to Test What Works

We would not be starting from nothing. Lincoln County already has a Community-Centered Court that brings judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, treatment providers and supervision officials together to address substance use and help participants build a stable life.

That experience could inform a broader discussion about prevention. Some changes could be pursued through local partnerships. Others, including a new prearrest diversion framework or wider record clearing, would require action at the state level.

I would like to see state and local leaders develop a carefully funded pilot with clear eligibility rules, independent evaluation and regular public reports. Track new crimes, new victims, restitution, housing, employment and program costs after one, two and three years. Compare outcomes with similar cases handled through traditional procedures.

Keep what works. Fix what does not. End approaches that fail to protect the public.

We are already spending money responding to crime, prosecuting cases and housing people in prison. Surely we should be just as willing to examine ways to prevent the next offense.

I do not believe everyone deserves unlimited chances. I do believe that a justice system worthy of its name should hold people accountable while giving those who can change a realistic opportunity to do so. That means seeing a person in prison not only as someone serving a sentence but also as someone who should be learning how to live without creating another victim.

The real measure of success is not how many people we punish. It is how many future victims we prevent.