THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, September 22, 1994 TAG: 9409220014
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Medium: 51 lines
You published (news, Sept. 14) an interesting slant that Virginia has on the criminal-justice system in Oregon. As a parole and probation officer for four years in Oregon (ending three months ago), I saw a lot of parallels between Oregon and Virginia (and not just in the justice system). The whole concept of doing away with parole is an interesting one; unfortunately, it appears that in the current economic climate you will have something that looks tough on crime but is actually both a mess to supervise and to live with.
In order to reduce the number of offenders in prison, Oregon developed a boot camp that cuts sentences by 50 percent to 66 percent. But no additional monies were given to the field offices to supervise these people in an intensive fashion upon their release from boot camp.
All the literature indicates intensive follow-up is a must in order for the program to be successful. In Oregon, as a part of sentencing guidelines, we did away with parole. Now we have something called ``post-prison supervision.'' To make room in crowded prisons, the state started to offer ``transitional leaves'' for the last six months of the sentence - another euphemism for parole.
The last straw for me, and the reason I moved to Virginia, was when the state started to place people sentenced to prison in the local restitution centers after six months. These inmates are still listed in the state computer system as being in prison.
Only if you work in the system, or if you are victims of these individuals and see them on the street when you know they should be in prison, would you know about the restitution-center dodge.
This is not truth in sentencing. It protects neither the community nor the victim. It is a manipulation of the system to cut costs.
Maybe it is backward of me, but I believe we need to determine how many prison beds this state can afford, and who should be in them.
I believe that the offender and the community should know exactly how long the offender will be in custody, and the rules should not change with each administration.
I also believe that prison should serve two purposes: protect the community (1) for the period that is set by the judge and the legislature and (2) past the period of incarceration with education and treatment programs for those inmates interested in bettering their lives and their communities.
DEBORAH SWANSON
Norfolk, Sept. 16, 1994 by CNB