Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, September 14, 1994 TAG: 9409140104
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: A-1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: By LAURA LaFAY and LAURENCE HAMMACK STAFF WRITERS
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Medium
Lt. Gov. Donald Beyer said parole should also be rescinded for the 7,500 violent offenders already serving time in Virginia.
"The governor's plan must be strengthened to prevent early release for the violent criminals now locked up," Beyer said. ``Unless violent felons now in prison are subject to the same careful scrutiny intended for future felons, the governor's plan is all bark, with the bite for the future.''
With less than a week before legislators convene in a special session to consider ending parole, Democrats have been struggling to upstage Allen and claim credit for the idea. Beyer, who toured the state Tuesday to spread the word about his new position, is the latest to join the fray.
On Monday, a largely Democratic commission headed by Del. James Almand, D-Arlington, endorsed an alternative proposal commission members claim is tougher than Allen's. That proposal would require inmates to serve minimum sentences without parole and double their sentences if they are deemed a continuing danger to society.
Allen's administration has dismissed the Almand plan as a "delay tactic." Responding to Beyer's claims Tuesday, the governor's press secretary said Allen has already dealt with current inmates by appointing a conservative Parole Board. That Parole Board, said Ken Stroupe, has released only 1 percent of the violent offenders who have come before it.
Beyer's ``excited rhetoric is simply unjustified. He is making much ado about things that already have been accomplished," Stroupe said in a press release. "Having sat on the sidelines during much of the parole reform debate, [Beyer] now has charged onto the field and fumbled."
In attacking Allen's plan, Beyer also squared off against state Attorney General Jim Gilmore, whom he will likely oppose in the 1997 gubernatorial race. On Tuesday, Gilmore said Beyer is engaging in "a classic case of cynical catch-the-train politics."
But former state Democratic Party Chairman Paul Goldman said Beyer's move puts the Republicans in the awkward position of having to respond to accusations of being soft on crime.
``Politically speaking, the Democrats have finally put the Republicans on the defense after having been hammered on crime for two years,'' Goldman said. ``The Democrats have finally figured out how not to be a punching bag for George Allen.''
Beyer's proposal is not new. But it adds influence to a suggestion made this month by Del. Frank Hall, D-Richmond. Hall wrote to Gilmore expressing concern that Allen's proposal was not retroactive and asked for an opinion about the constitutionality of applying the plan to current inmates.
Although Gilmore's office has not responded, Beyer on Tuesday cited a 1988 Virginia case, Cruz. v. Clark, which he said, "makes clear that parole eligibility may be changed for existing violent prisoners by revising parole and good time guidelines exercised by the independent Parole Board."
Others, however, disputed Beyer's claim.
"This is a totally different situation," said Paul Marcus, who teaches law at the College of William and Mary's Marshall-Wythe School of Law. "What the lieutenant governor is talking about is leaps beyond [the decision in] this case."
The decision in Cruz vs. Clark never has been challenged, noted Marcus. Nevertheless, it applies only to procedural changes, and "does not rule out cases where a change in the parole process'' could violate the U.S. Constitution's ban against retroactive punishment.
Kent Willis, executive director of the Virginia chapter of the American Liberties Union, called Beyer's proposal "outrageously unconstitutional." If such a plan is implemented, said Willis, "the ACLU will be the first in a long line of advocacy groups and individuals to file a constitutional challenge."
"This just goes to show the extremes to which lawmakers will go to sell their tough-on-crime attitudes," he said.
Willis and others maintain that Beyer's proposal would unfairly increase the punishment of inmates sentenced under the old system.
"It would be wrong," said Neal Devins, a constitutional law professor at Marshall-Wythe. "So long as judges would take length of sentence into account under a system with parole, then you're basically imposing an extra penalty on people simply because they were sentenced under the old regime."
The cost of Beyer's plan is unknown.
by CNB