A s the Oregon Constitution puts it, "Laws for the punishment of crime shall be founded on these principles: protection of society, personal responsibility, accountability for one's actions and reformation."

In recent years, that criminal justice philosophy has translated mostly into a lock-'em-up policy, in Oregon and across the nation. That is, build more prisons, lock up more criminals and keep them inside longer.

This strategy has corresponded with a decline in violent crime in Oregon and around the country, but as the April 22 report by The Oregonian's Edward Walsh explained, it also has powerful economic implications. As the prison population expands, it costs more to build, staff, operate and maintain prisons. That drives the public safety and corrections budget higher, meaning that the growth in such spending diminishes money available for other government priorities, from salaries for teachers to equipment for the National Guard.

This economic effect is beyond debate. But what's still very much under discussion is whether Oregonians are getting a satisfactory return on what they pay for corrections.

This argument extends beyond the realm of economics. Crime victims' advocates make a passionate, powerful point of their own: More criminals in prison means fewer crimes will be committed against law-abiding citizens. And for anybody who has been touched by such violent crimes as murder or rape, that's ample reason to continue the lock-'em-up policy.

But it's not clear that extending the policy to other types of crimes, such as nonviolent property crimes, will cut the crime rate. And even if it does, will the higher costs of corrections offset the savings in the direct and hidden costs of crime? To these questions, the only sure answer is that corrections will cost more.

This is an unsustainable economic practice. Oregon must reckon with the increasing burden of corrections costs, which will force it into harder and harder choices about how best to spend its finite resources for the benefit of the most citizens. Oregon's legislators and governor will have to ask themselves what part of the state budget they're willing to cut to keep a meth addict in prison longer.

It doesn't take an economics major to see how troubling the trends are. Not only is Oregon's population growing, but the rate at which it jails citizens has grown as well. As a result, the state is paying ever higher costs in salaries for guards, food and capital construction.

In this context, it is difficult to see the wisdom in the latest proposal from former legislator and Measure 11 sponsor Kevin Mannix, who wants to require courts to jail more people convicted of drug and property-crime charges for longer periods of time.

As troubling as such crimes are, it's essential that the state comes to grips with the forces that are guiding the state budget increasingly toward steel bars and concrete walls, and away from roads and textbooks.