Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, August 9, 1994 TAG: 9409020016
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: JAMES M. SHULER
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
First, we cannot build our way out of the crime problem simply by erecting new prisons.
States such as Florida, Texas and California, among others, have tried this approach with dismal results. Virginia's incarceration rate, one of the highest in the nation, increased by 76 percent from 1980 to 1990, yet crime continues to escalate.
In Virginia, we have nine new prisons coming on line just to meet the anticipated rate of incarceration under our present parole system.
Second, elimination of parole had not proved an effective means of dealing with the criminal element.
Those criminals who commit heinous crimes should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. They should not be given the opportunity to repeat their offenses. Justice should be swift and sure.
On the other hand, first-time nonviolent offenders who make restitution and prove their rehabilitation can utilize parole and "good time" initiatives to hasten their return as productive members of society. Parole and probation do play a significant role in prison-population management.
Third, alternative sentencing will become a major component of any meaningful reform of correctional policies.
We cannot build our way out of this dilemma, and are forced to consider viable and appropriate sentencing alternatives for nonviolent first-time offenders.
Fourth, any significant progress in addressing crime must, of necessity, include improving rehabilitative measures.
In Virginia, the recidivism rate hovers around 60 percent. Prisoners are housed in $80,000 cells, and the annual maintenance per prisoner averages around $20,000 for food, clothing, security, medical, and a host of other expenses. Yet, we falter on rehabilitative measures prior to releasing the prisoner.
For example, many prisoners enter the correctional system with chemical-dependency problems and are released with the same problems. In addition, the prisoner is likely to become a more hardened criminal, more knowledgeable about the system and more savvy about how to avoid apprehension for criminal behavior when he is again on the outside. He is released with $25 in his pocket and a bus ticket.
To a large extent, this approach is why we have a 60-percent recidivism rate. Capital costs are a fixed expense over which we have little control, but enhanced rehabilitative measures can be cost-effective in the long term to dilute our capital costs. Being tough on crime is not limited to vast sums of capital expenditures.
Fifth, we must continue to place more emphasis on crime prevention.
Over the past 15 years, our state has instituted a host of crime-prevention programs, including some that have been very successful. Every governor has had a crime commission, and every session of the General Assembly has made an enormous effort to enact programs and laws to deter crime. Being tough on crime embraces effective prevention.
Finally, we must not lose sight of the role that education plays in crime prevention.
The fact that 70 percent of our prison inmates are high-school dropouts should strongly remind us that education, or the lack of it, is indeed a significant statistic contributing to our crime problem. Revising our educational priorities deserves and requires a high level of attention. Being tough on crime means providing for our educational needs.
There is no quick fix or political gimmick to solve our crime problems. Crime has no political or social boundaries. We are all vulnerable. We all share in the costs and results of crime.
Education, prevention and rehabilitation all must be combined with parole and sentencing reform. Together, we can transcend partisan rhetoric and bring the issue to more effective resolution.
James M. Shuler of Blacksburg is a Democratic member of the Virginia House of Delegates.
by CNB