news-record.com

This afternoon, Gov. Perdue issued a very bold statement saying she will not release the much-talked-about 20 violent criminals until "new legal issues have been resolved by the courts."

The new issues are her contention -- and, at this point, her contention alone -- that the N.C. Department of Correction back in the 1980s improperly awarded inmates time off their sentences for good conduct.

Maybe she's right about that. Maybe she's wrong. I don't know.

What seems clear to me is that she was determined, by hook or crook, to keep these offenders in prison -- despite the rulings of the state's highest courts.

It's also clear why:

A legitimate concern for public safety ...

... and politics.

To the first point, it's unfortunately very likely that at least one of the first batch of 20 killers and rapists released would commit violent crimes again. Maybe several of them. The longer they're locked up, the better for anyone who might become a victim.

To the second point, this is a godsend for a governor whose approval ratings have been in the 20s or 30s. Perdue is standing at the jailhouse door refusing to let the monsters out. Bravo!

This is the new SHEriff in town that Perdue boasted of when she was inaugurated in January.

But here's where things get murky. On that day, she swore an oath to support the constitution and the laws of North Carolina. Despite her bold statement today, she's got to be careful that she doesn't run afoul of that obligation.

The governor has to uphold the law, even when she doesn't agree with it. And when the Supreme Court of the state says, "This is what the law requires," the governor doesn't have much leeway.

Now, Perdue doesn't say she's defying the courts, although she was close to that earlier today when she laughed she might end up in jail (possibly on a contempt-of-court citation). This isn't a joking matter, and she's wise to steer away from that sort of talk.

In fact, now she's trying to put the ball back in the courts' court, so to speak. She insists she'll hold these inmates until a court rules on the good-conduct time accrued for each.

But that tactic raises questions.

By what mechanism and on what authority is Perdue kicking this to the courts? The governor can't tell the courts what to do. Who's going to compel the courts to take on the very time-consuming task of examining Department of Correction records from more than 20 years ago -- not just for 20 inmates but presumably for every prisoner who earned credits during the 1980s?

Lots of them, you'd have to assume, were released long ago with the help of good-conduct time. Are they going to be rounded up and hauled back into prison if someone says they were given good-conduct credit improperly?

Every time a prisoner nears completion of a sentence, is the governor going to ask the courts to sign off on his release? 

But what if the courts refuse the job of plowing through old records? What if they say, quite rightly, that's the responsibility of DOC?

Will these prisoners reside behind bars in a state of legal limbo? Can the governor, by fiat, compel them to serve real life sentences even though the law at the time of their sentencing defined life as something less than that?

Certainly, these prisoners can file their own suits against the state, as Bobby Bowden did in triggering this whole dilemma. That would force the courts to get involved. It would take years for the new cases to work through to conclusion.

Delay obviously suits the governor and no doubt the public as well. Who's going to sympathize with killers and rapists who by all standards of decency ought never to walk free again?

But the greater issue here concerns the rule of law.

The legislature enacts laws dealing with criminal matters.

The courts set sentences in accordance with law.

The executive is charged with seeing that sentences are carried out in compliance with the law and the orders of the courts.

The executive now says it erred, more than 20 years ago, in applying the law and carrying out the orders of the court. It erred by granting prisoners too much good-conduct credit.

How many prisoners, with what consequences, and what should be the remedy, it might be impossible to say.

Whether the governor can back up her declaration, or whether she may yet be found in contempt of court, are questions that must be answered.

One side can say it's better to err on the side of public safety and keep these offenders behind locked doors.

The other can say it's better to err on the side of law, because a governor who defies legitimate legal authority is a threat to everyone's liberty.