Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, October 28, 1993 TAG: 9310280089
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: C1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: WARREN FISKE STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Long
The question has dominated the gubernatorial campaign. In debates and television advertising, each candidate has claimed to have the tougher plan for keeping violent felons locked up.
What's a voter to believe?
The available evidence suggests that Republican Allen, who pledges to abolish parole and implement a system of mandatory minimum sentences, may have a slightly tougher and more expensive plan than Democrat Terry, who would fine-tune Virginia's criminal penalties.
But the bottom line is impossible to establish, because the candidates have only outlined reforms that would add new intricacies to an already staggeringly complex system. Many key details of their plans, they say, will not be ironed out until after the Nov. 2 election.
What's clear is that the candidates have greatly exaggerated the differences in their plans. Allen, using extreme examples of criminal sentencing in Virginia, has created the possibly erroneous impression that under his plan, felons typically would serve triple the amount of time in prison as under Terry's proposal.
And Terry, relying on questionable data, may have overestimated the cost of Allen's program, putting it as high as $2.8 billion. Allen says his plan may cost about one-fourth that much.
Still confused? Here are some questions and answers to help you understand the complex proposals:
\ How does criminal sentencing now work in Virginia?
Although juries frequently hand down long prison sentences, criminals usually are freed after serving a fraction of their time. That's because most felons become eligible for parole after serving one-fourth of their sentences. They can cut their time further by being model prisoners, earning up to one day off for each day of good conduct.
As a result, it is possible for many prisoners to become eligible for parole after serving only about one-eighth of their sentences.
Rapists and premeditated murderers are not covered by those rules, however. Under a law effective July 1, they are ineligible for parole until serving two-thirds of their sentences, regardless of any "good-time" credits.
Virginia also has a "three-time loser" law for anyone with three separate convictions on any combination of rape, murder or armed robbery charges. Those prisoners are not eligible for parole.
Most nonviolent offenders are released from prison as soon as the law permits, said Clarence Jackson, chairman of the state Parole Board. But few violent offenders are paroled when first eligible, and virtually no sex offenders ever are paroled, Jackson added, although they may reduce their sentences by earning good time.
\ What is Terry's plan?
Terry wants prisoners serving time for murder, rape, armed robbery, malicious wounding or kidnapping to be required to serve two-thirds of their sentences before becoming eligible for parole. Nonviolent criminals would remain eligible after serving one-fourth of their sentences, less any good time.
To create more prison space for the longer sentences violent criminals would be serving, Terry says, the state should use more alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent felons.
Although the parole issue has been an important one in the campaign, Terry has put none of her plan in writing. She has outlined it in some interviews, however.
\ What is Allen's plan?
Allen promises to end what he calls "Virginia's liberal, lenient parole system" in favor of a system of mandatory minimum sentences similar to those now used by federal courts.
His proposal would limit the discretion Virginia judges have in punishing criminals. A rapist, for example, now may be sentenced to anywhere from five years in prison to life.
Under Allen's proposal, minimum penalties likely would increase, and maximums would decrease. A first-time rapist, under the federal guidelines, can get at least nine years, but no more than 11.3 years.
Because parole would be eliminated, Allen argues, prisoners would serve more time. He says his plan promotes "truth in sentencing" to assure juries and the public that "the time you're given is the time you serve."
But even under Allen's plan, prisoners could earn early release. Allen would keep "good-time" credits for model prisoners, letting the best cut up to one-third off their sentences.
Although Allen says he would model his plan on the federal system, Virginia could end up with stronger or weaker sentences than those imposed by federal judges. Allen says he would appoint a commission to recommend mandatory sentences for various crimes.
Allen says he hopes to make Virginia's no-parole system at least as strong as the federal government's, but he won't promise success. And while Allen has put a proposal in writing, questions this week about how it would work often drew multiple and conflicting answers from his staff.
Allen agrees with Terry that the state must find alternatives to prison for nonviolent offenders.
\ Which plan is tougher on violent felons?
Allen's proposal appears to be tougher. But direct comparisons with Terry's plan are difficult, because the federal and state governments keep different statistics on criminal sentencing.
For example, a first-time rapist under Allen's plan would receive an average sentence of 10 years. With maximum good-time credits, he would be freed after 6.7 years.
A first-time rapist under Terry's plan could get five years to life. Averages on what first-time offenders now receive are not available, but the overall average sentence for rapists is 9.4 years. Under Terry's plan, a person given that term would be eligible for parole after 6.3 years.
\ What about about repeat offenders?
Terry would retain the state's "three-time loser" law, which means that a third-time rapist would not be eligible for parole.
Under the federal plan Allen is promoting, repeat rapists would not be eligible for good-behavior release before serving at least 20 years.
\ How much would the programs cost?
A lot. Even with no change to Virginia's sentencing structure, correction officials say they will need nine new prisons over the next decade - at a cost of about $500 million - to house the state's growing inmate population. In addition to construction costs, to be stretched over a number of years, the annual costs of running the prisons will increase by an estimated $103 million.
Terry says her plan would require an additional $108 million in construction costs beyond the state estimates and would add $20 million to annual operating costs.
Allen estimates his plan would cost $638 million in construction and $119 million in annual operating costs, to be phased in over 12 years. His figures are based on current prison populations and include no money for additional inmates. He has pledged not to raise taxes.
Terry challenges Allen's estimates. In TV commercials and debates, she has maintained that Allen's no-parole plan would require $2.3 billion in new prison construction and $585 million annually in operating costs.
But Terry's figures may be misleading. They come from a Department of Corrections estimate of the cost of eliminating parole and good time and assume no shortening of sentences given by judges. Allen would retain good-time allowances and have judges impose shorter terms.
"Terry wants to have her cake and eat it too," said Robert W. Lauterberg, Allen's policy adviser. "She wants people to believe she'll keep criminals in prison just as long as George Allen, but at only a fraction of the cost. She can't have it both ways."
But Allen may have greatly underestimated the cost of his plan. He assumes that his no-parole proposal will lead to a 50 percent increase in Virginia's inmate population. The federal prison system, the model for Allen's program, has seen a 116 percent increase in its prison population since dropping parole in 1987.
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB