Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, January 1, 1995 TAG: 9501030019
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: HOLIDAY
SOURCE: LAURENCE HAMMACK STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Now that Gov. George Allen's crime-fighting, parole-ending, truth-in-sentencing proposal is state law, Virginia judges will have to get used to imposing shorter prison sentences in many cases.
That's right, shorter sentences.
When the General Assembly passed Allen's proposal in September - ending parole for all felony offenses as of today and establishing voluntary sentencing guidelines to achieve "truth in sentencing" - it was hailed as a way to keep criminals locked up longer.
It will, but not for all criminals. While much of the emphasis of Allen's proposal was targeted at repeat and violent offenders, nonviolent criminals - such as drug dealers, thieves and embezzlers - will serve about the same amount of time.
With no parole, though, their sentences actually will be shorter than the ones they received under the old system.
For example, under the old system, a first-time drug dealer might have been sentenced to four years in prison, but paroled after serving 10 months. Under the new system with no parole, he would be sentenced to 10 months.
At its first meeting last month in Richmond, the commission responsible for developing new sentencing guidelines decided that one of its priorities will be to educate the state's judiciary about the new system.
The idea is to change the thinking of judges who, in the past, routinely sentenced criminals to long terms, knowing that only a fraction of the sentence would be served. Under the new system, defendants will serve at least 85 percent of the sentence pronounced in court.
"The concern that the commission has is, we better make sure the judges understand that, and we will be embarking on an educational mission so that they do," said Richard Cullen, a former U.S. attorney and a member of the state's Criminal Sentencing Commission.
"What we need the judges to remember is that time served, as opposed to the sentence, is the key factor," Cullen said.
Otherwise, he said, "It could be a psychological problem to ask a judge to sentence someone to 10 months, when he might have sentenced a similarly situated person to four years under the old guidelines."
Samuel Johnston, a member of the commission and a judge for the 24th Judicial Circuit, which includes Bedford and Campbell counties and Lynchburg, agreed that judges will have to adjust.
"We've got to be retrained and reprogrammed, there's no question about that," Johnston said.
"It used to be that when I wanted someone to serve two or three years, I would sentence him to 20 years. But now we know that two years means two years, and we've got to be mindful of that and not be thinking about what the Parole Board might do, because that doesn't exist anymore."
Richard Kern, the executive director of the sentencing commission, said seminars will be conducted around the state in the coming months to explain the new system to judges, probation officers, prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Because the no-parole law affects only crimes committed on or after Jan. 1, the first sentencings under the law are several months away - giving the commission some breathing time to conduct the seminars.
People convicted of offenses before Jan. 1 will continue to be sentenced under the old parole laws, and inmates now incarcerated still will come up for parole.
The new sentencing guidelines, based on the average time served for all offenses in Virginia over the past five years, will be voluntary; but, if judges do not follow the guidelines regularly, they risk overcrowding the state's already strained prison system.
"The prisons will be overflowing in a year" if judges continue their old sentencing practices, Johnston said.
Allen's plan to abolish parole is expected to require 27 new prisons over the next 10 years, at a cost that has been estimated to be as high as $2.2 billion.
Cullen, who also served on a commission appointed by Allen to study abolishing parole before the General Assembly's special session, stressed that the more serious, violent offenders will serve "a substantially longer sentence" under the governor's plan.
A repeat or violent offender could face up to five times as long behind bars, depending on the nature of the crime and the extent of prior criminal background.
Although it is hard for officials to say how many offenders will receive tougher sentences under the new law, figures from 1993 presented to the commission last month offer a hint.
Of the 20,584 people who were sentenced statewide for felonies in 1993, only 20 percent would have served more time under the no-parole law, according to calculations by Kern.
That may be misleading, though, because those figures include criminals who received short terms of incarceration, suspended sentences or straight probation.
Kern said it would be more meaningful to consider the 6,881 defendants who received prison terms of two years or more in 1993. Of that group, 49 percent would have received harsher punishment under the laws that go into effect today.
Still, the number of repeat, violent offenders - the "criminal predators" so often vilified by Allen as he pitched his anti-parole plan to the public - may not be as large as some had expected.
In the five or six murder cases he has presided over in the past year, Johnston said, he could not recall a defendant with a prior violent offense.
Of 20,584 felons sentenced in Virginia last year, just 2.1 percent were convicted of murder. Another 10.5 percent were convicted of rape, robbery and aggravated assault, generally considered to be the other violent offenses.
Drug offenders were the largest category, making up 34 percent of the felony sentencings in 1993. Under the Allen plan, drug dealing is considered a nonviolent crime, although offenders with a prior violent offense will face serving up to 400 percent more time.
Larceny, also considered a nonviolent crime, was responsible for 19 percent of the prison sentencings in 1993.
After hearing about Allen's get-tough approach to crime for months, some citizens may be surprised to see drug dealers and thieves receive shorter sentences under the new system.
"I hope the public will come to understand that the time is essentially what they would have served before," Johnston said.
Roanoke Commonwealth's Attorney Donald Caldwell said he supports much of the new parole law, but agreed that some citizens may not be fully informed about its impact.
"In terms of the actual time behind bars, it's not any different" in many cases, Caldwell said. "I hate to use the word 'illusionary,' but some of the parole reform is, in certain respects, illusionary."
by CNB