news-record.com

Gov. Bev Perdue has been "appalled," "angry," "disgusted" and "furious." She's not pulling any punches in stating how she feels about court rulings -- one after another -- siding with criminals who claim they completed their "life" sentences and ought to be released from prison.

People can relate to the governor's impassioned response. Murderers and rapists shouldn't go free after only 30 or 35 years behind bars. They might still be dangerous. Where's the consideration for their victims and victims' families?

"This is not how government and the courts are supposed to work for the people of North Carolina," Perdue said Monday, after the latest decision on behalf of inmates. "This is wrong. I've been in politics a long time, and I have never been this disgusted with the system in my life."

Perdue's poll ratings have climbed since she took up this cause in October. Her problem, though, is that she's appealing to emotions rather than reason. In fact, this issue shows that the courts are working exactly as they should -- rendering decisions based on law, not what's politically popular.

Wake County Superior Court Judge Ripley Rand, who issued the ruling that infuriated Perdue on Monday, has all the right political connections. His father is Tony Rand, outgoing majority leader in the N.C. Senate, whom Perdue recently named to head the state parole commission. Judge Rand was appointed to his seat by former Gov. Mike Easley. He's been recommended by U.S. Sen. Kay Hagan for appointment as the U.S. attorney in the Middle District of North Carolina. It makes no sense for Rand to render such an unpopular judgment unless he's convinced it's legally correct.

Our leaders should save their disgust for instances when judges disregard the law. Perdue, however, is exploiting a volatile issue to direct public animosity toward the courts.

Rand indicated his decision wasn't difficult, based on state laws in force in the 1970s when these criminals were sentenced to "life" and on Department of Correction policies that awarded time off for good conduct. He ruled in the cases of two inmates, ordering their immediate release.

The state quickly obtained a stay from the N.C. Court of Appeals, where arguments might be heard next -- again. The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of another inmate's claim for release on the same grounds in November 2008, and the Supreme Court affirmed that decision in October. This time around, the state has raised slightly different legal objections -- so far without success.

It all boils down to the same thing: The politicians want to be seen fighting for public safety against the release of dangerous criminals. But they can't go back 35 years in time and rewrite the laws that were in place then and cover the criminals who were sentenced under them. Nor should they try to bully judges who must apply those laws. The courts can't bend to political pressure, not even from an angry governor.