Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, October 3, 1993                   TAG: 9310030015
SECTION: VIRGINIA                    PAGE: E-7   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: DALE EISMAN STAFF WRITER
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

ANTI-CRIME PLEDGES MAKE IT SEEM EASY - TOO, TOO EASY

Well, you and I know it. But Terry? And George Allen, her Republican opponent for governor? Do they know it?

Consider Terry's latest anti-crime prescription, part of the same commercial: "As governor, I'll toughen our parole laws. And for the criminals in jail, no cable TV or color TV. Prisoners will work."

Why didn't somebody realize this before? Otherwise solid citizens are dealing dope and sticking-up 7-Elevens so they can watch C-Span for free on jailhouse color TV sets; if we switch 'em to black-and-white sets and confine 'em to the over-the-air networks, our streets will be safe again.

And never mind that convicts watching in color pay for the sets themselves through profits on their purchases at prison commissaries, or that the state only brings cable to prisons in rural areas where otherwise there would be no TV service.

Allen has another explanation for the rise in crime: It's Terry's fault.

"As the state's top law enforcement official, Terry presided over the largest increase in violent crime in history," a current Allen commercial tells voters. "Rape is up; robbery is up; and murder is up dramatically too."

Terry was state attorney general for seven years, and in her commercials claims she "cracked down on drug dealers" while in office. So maybe you can make a case for Allen's blaming her for increases in violent crime.

But given that the attorney general doesn't command a police force or prosecute criminals or vote on new criminal laws in the General Assembly, how did she crack down on the drug dealers and what could she have done to stop all that murder, rape and robbery?

Only in campaign rhetoric is the attorney general "the state's top law enforcement official." His/her main job is to defend state agencies when they're sued and to give advice that will help them avoid being sued; when it comes to crime fighting, the attorney general is pretty much limited to suggesting new laws and arguing the prosecution's side when criminals appeal their convictions.

Terry did that. The state won every death penalty appeal on her watch. And besides, blaming her for a nationwide increase in crime is like holding a single doctor responsible for increasing deaths from heart disease or cancer.

Both candidates have made abolishing or toughening parole an important part of their crime platforms. Allen wants to end parole for violent criminals. He reminds voters of that proposal almost daily but never talks about the cost of all the new prisons we'd need to house cons now being paroled.

When some of us asked him about that during an interview in August, Allen suggested those prisons could be run for $119 million per year and that it would cost $630 million to build them. Where would the money come from? Better administration of the prisons would save some, Allen said, and the rest would have to be squeezed from other state functions.

"To me, the priorities of state government and the top responsibilities are our law enforcement and education," he said. "And we'll simply make those priorities."

Of course there's nothing simple about it. Not with college presidents demanding another $223 million to keep their schools going; not with Medicaid costs continuing to grow by leaps and bounds; not with the economy remaining flat and state revenues stagnant.

Terry and Allen both know that; they'll even admit it when you press them on the subject. In our interviews, each discussed a variety of approaches to attacking crime on a tight budget and showed off an appreciation for the complexity of the problem.

But neither of them apparently believes the voters are ready for a dispassionate discussion. And not even in our interviews did either confront what may be the most difficult crime problem: what the state should do with people while they're in prison to steer them away from crime when they get out.

At best, tougher parole laws can only delay the release of violent criminals; except for the relatively few serving life sentences, all will be back on the streets someday. What can we do with them now so they won't do something to us then?