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

DATE: FRIDAY, September 23, 1994                   TAG: 9409240019
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: FREDERICK NUNN
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

CRIMINALS CAN'T SET THEIR OWN TERMS

I READ carefully the special-report series on parole that appeared in the Roanoke Times & World-News beginning Sept. 11. I applaud your attempts to present to the public various viewpoints and statistics concerning crime in America, particularly in Virginia. However, I'm confused about the message contained in the second article. It features a very large photo of a gentle-looking man, Benjamin Arroyo, who has been dubbed ``the polite robber.''

Arroyo was quoted as having said, ``I got a conscience. I'm a nice person.'' But then we learned that during 10 armed robberies, he pointed a loaded gun at restaurant workers and demanded money. Then, he traditionally forced his victims into a dark freezer. Polite? Are we being asked to empathize with him because he did not leave each crime scene a blood bath? Are we to believe there are good armed robbers and bad armed robbers?

On the same page was a news article, ``Ex-inmates say ending parole is a mistake.'' This article becomes more straightforward. It's an in-your-face threat aimed at our emotions and the proposed new crime bill. The three parolees pictured aren't intended to resemble the ``polite'' Arroyos. These men are stern-faced.

It's as if we're being given a choice - go along with things as they are (lenient parole) or, as one of the three men is reported to have said, ``Without parole, I'm going to eliminate the (victim) altogether. That way I don't have no witness.''

Are we being threatened by convicted felons warning us that if we (the public) punish them to the letter of the law, they (the felons) will increase the viciousness of their crimes because they'll have nothing to lose?

This threat is, to my way of thinking, nothing short of extortion. And I strongly suggest to those holding that point of view that there are millions of men and women in this country who have overcome more formidable forces than they. Americans are generally fair-minded, but the above threat of accelerated violence against the public contains a dangerously provocative philosophy.

When, and if, violent criminals manage to determine the extent of their punishment (as though criminality were a legally protected profession), then this country's citizens are being pushed ever closer to the wall.

In your Sept. 15 article, Frank E. Sanders, a retired prison administrator, advises that, ``If you don't give them (the parolees) any kind of a sentence that offers any kind of hope at all, this state is going to be one riot after another.'' Well, there may be riots, but rioting, too, is illegal, and participants must lose more than they gain. The Los Angeles riots may have looked like a frenetic picnic to some. But, if riots take place in Virginia because we pass the crime bill, I, for one, am counting on Gov. Allen to fight fire with fire. Apparently, nothing else, as we know it, works.

Within the statistics and thousands of words appearing in the special series, I had to struggle to keep some perspective concerning the basic premise of the crime bill. Does incarceration of repeat violent offenders reduce the incidence of violent crime? My conclusion turned out to be amazingly simple:

Repeat-violent criminals are less likely to commit violent crimes when they are behind bars.

Frederick Nunn of Blacksburg is a retired administrator and teacher with independent elementary schools.

by CNB