Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, August 4, 1994 TAG: 9408040046
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Ray L. Garland
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Richard Cullen, the co-chairman of the Commission on Parole Abolition and Sentencing Reform appointed by Allen, recently said that even without a further tightening of the law, the state will need 7,100 more prison beds by 1999. This is on top of the 2,100 spaces the Department of Corrections plans to create by putting two prisoners in cells currently holding one. According to department estimates, building the 7,100 new beds will cost $600 million.
And more will have to be built if parole is ended, longer sentences handed out and all inmates serve at least 85 percent of the time imposed. That is the direction in which the governor has pointed his commission, which has only another five or six weeks to finalize its proposals for a special session of the General Assembly called for Sept. 19. Democrats are sure to have competing ideas, and the legislature may get into a bidding war to see who can be toughest.
Congress is naturally getting into the act and soon will pass a massive crime bill appropriating $33 billion over the next six years. Virginia will undoubtedly find some new money in the vast labyrinth Congress is constructing. It contains the usual mandates to qualify for funding, such as compliance with federal truth-in-sentencing guidelines. But since the heart of Allen's program is to make 10 years mean 10 years, etc., that shouldn't pose a problem.
Some Virginia cities imposing relatively high rates of local taxation may come in for a share of a special $2 billion fund for a wide range of educational and cultural endeavors said to address the "root causes" of crime. There is this warning, however. States and localities may find themselves holding the bag on some of these programs, such as tens of thousands of new police slots, once congressional enthusiasm wanes or the next hot ticket comes along.
But few will be bothered at seeing the federal government borrow money to give it to states and localities mainly operating on balanced budgets. Nor will they care very much that the bill goes a long way toward federalizing law enforcement.
Mindful of the cost of incarcerating a larger prison population, Allen's panel is focusing on some cheaper alternatives, such as establishing work camps for nonviolent offenders and allowing private enterprise to contract for prison labor. As the governor recently said, "We complain about prison labor from China; well, let's have our own prisoners doing something."
One of the last measures I got through the legislature - more than 12 years ago - was a resolution creating a joint subcommittee to study prison industries. We had a few desultory meetings under a somnolent chairman. But there was clearly no will to enlarge the scope of prison industries, even to serve the needs of state government. The oft-heard cry "prison labor shouldn't compete with free labor" was persuasive to most.
Looking back, those doubts were probably well-founded. Take printing, for instance, which the state certainly requires in abundance. That looked like an obvious candidate for prison labor. But modern printing is a big-volume, high-tech business needing large capital investment and highly skilled operators. It's very doubtful the state would ever have authorized the large capital outlay required , nor carried through with the rigorous training necessary to make proper use of the equipment. Certainly, it would never have permitted prison industries to bid for private-sector business.
The Allen administration is trying a different approach. Making use of a bill quietly passed at the '94 assembly, it is seeking private companies willing to establish operations on prison property, employing prison labor. The difference is the private operator must supply the capital, contract with the prisoners and be responsible for sales.
The fly in the ointment is that, by law, all such ventures must produce only those goods and services not already produced by Virginia businesses. Right off, it's hard to think of anything qualifying. But that provision might be modified. The key would seem to rest on the issue of wages. If prison labor is paid something not far below the market rate - with a portion retained by the state to offset some of the cost of incarceration - there would seem only a scant basis for legitimate complaint.
Violent crime seems peculiarly the domain of those under 30. Juvenile-probation officers tell us the present system seems to create in young minds the idea they can get away with murder. After a few slaps on the wrist have convinced them the criminal-justice system is a toothless tiger, it falls down on them like a ton of bricks, sticking them with a long stretch behind bars and taxpayers with a very large bill. That would suggest the state should focus its greatest efforts on young criminals, not hesitating to jail them for brief periods of shock therapy.
In fairness to those who say lock 'em up and throw away the key, state statistics paint a grim picture of those convicted of crimes of violence. In 1992, 79 percent of those convicted of robbery, assault, murder/manslaughter and sexual assault had prior convictions. Since common sense tells us there must be many criminal acts committed for each person successfully brought to justice, official statistics may understate the problem.
Ray L. Garland is a Roanoke Times & World-News columnist.
by CNB