AS THE POWERS THAT BE look to save money by reducing the prison population, I’d like to offer up one group of prisoners deserving of a particularly expeditious release, and who shouldn’t even be in jail to begin with: those in prison for offenses for which they have not been found guilty.

When a judge hands down a jail term of less than the statutory maximum, he or she may also order the defendant to serve a “suspended sentence” upon release, such that the total sentence is no longer than the statutory limit. (As one ex-prisoner has written, such a sentence is suspended indeed — like a guillotine waiting to drop.) Typically, judges also order defendants to serve a probationary sentence, concurrently with and of a length equal to the suspended sentence.

Per-capita, more people in Rhode Island are serving probation than in all but one other state. The average length of a probation sentence here is 60 percent longer than the national average. Probationers must abide by a set of conditions, such as maintaining regular contact with a probation officer, participation in an alcoholism-treatment program, performance of community service, and so on. Additionally, probationers are expected to “keep the peace.”

Violation of a condition of probation may yield reincarceration, for a period less than or equal to the length of the suspended sentence. Commission of a new crime is considered a violation of the requirement that a probationer “keep the peace.” So, when a probationer is accused of a new crime, he or she faces potential incarceration for that offense — through a probation violation hearing, for failure to keep the peace — without ever being tried on criminal charges.

Such a probationer may be returned to prison for up to the length of his or her whole suspended sentence. The evidentiary standard for the finding of a probation violation — “satisfactory evidence” — is much lower than the criminal standard — “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

This means that the probability of being found in violation of one’s sentence is very high. Understanding that there’s an overwhelming likelihood that he or she will go to prison for the entirety of the suspended sentence, the accused has a powerful incentive to plead to a somewhat shorter prison term, even when he or she is not guilty of the new accusation.

The case of Pawtucket’s Richard Beverly makes it clear why even the innocent are sometimes wise to cut such deals. In 2000, Beverly — who now owns a successful construction firm — had been on probation for three years. He was accused of breaking into a gas station, and chose to fight the charges, refusing to take a deal to serve two years in prison. He demanded a trial and access to the evidence being held against him. He was denied on both fronts, and sent to prison to serve the full seven years of his suspended sentence.

The charges were dropped two years later, just before Beverly finally got hold of police tapes that made it clear that he wasn’t at the scene of the crime. After a total of three undeserved years in prison, Beverly was released. Nobody knows precisely how many people are behind bars for similar reasons — the state’s databases simply classify them as probation violators, rather than as perpetrators of the supposed crimes for which they’re really in prison. Forty percent of inmates at the ACI are there for violating probation. But at a recent hearing before the Judiciary Committee of the Rhode Island House, John Hardiman, Rhode Island’s head public defender, testified that his office regularly interacts with probationers who find themselves accused of new crimes, with little recourse.

Hardiman outlined one case in particular, in which a client on a three-year suspended sentence was accused of murder. He was put back in prison, and when he was acquitted of that murder by a jury, he had no recourse, and stayed behind bars.

Most states’ procedures are distinctly different from Rhode Island’s, in that they are in line with the recommendations of the American Bar Association. According to the ABA, “When an alleged violation is based solely on the alleged commission of another offense, the rules should provide that the final hearing on the alleged violation ordinarily should be held after disposition of the new criminal charge.”

I’ve introduced House Bill 6007, which would require that those who are being held for a violation based solely on the alleged commission of a new crime, actually be charged with and convicted of that crime within a reasonable period of time, or otherwise be released. With more people incarcerated per-capita than in any other country, the U.S. prison-industrial complex represents a grave humanitarian crisis. Fewer people should be in prison, and we need to consider the creation of new institutions that focus on rehabilitation rather than punish- ment, and let people participate productively in our society. Releasing those whom we haven’t afforded basic due process would be a good start.

David Segal is a Rhode Island state representative from Providence .