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

DATE: FRIDAY, August 26, 1994                   TAG: 9410010037
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A8   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

ALLEN'S PAROLE PLAN ON A ROLL

GOV. GEORGE ALLEN came to Roanoke Thursday to tout his plan for sentencing and parole reform - as if it needs touting. The plan's central thrust, keeping violent criminals in prison longer, ideally until past the age they'll commit more violence, is both popular and sound.

Like President Clinton on health-care reform, Allen deserves credit simply for transforming discussion of the issue from idle palaver into a concrete plan. (What did Democratic governors and legislators do about sentencing reform over the past decade?) Unlike health-care reform, the politics of Allen's initiative is relatively uncomplicated. (Violent criminals aren't an influential lobby in Richmond.)

This newspaper would prefer more investment in preventing crime as well as responding to it, but there's no question that Allen is riding an elective mandate for his policy.

Indeed, the danger isn't that Allen's plan will be shot down, but that it will shoot through too quickly, not getting the kind of considered, skeptical examination that could strengthen it.

The report by Allen's Commission on Parole Abolition and Sentencing Reform is a strong one, focusing on longer sentences for violent and repeat offenders; truth in sentencing; diversion of nonviolent offenders to alternative punishments; insistence that convicts work; and willingness to invest money in the reforms. The commission's work seems to show more recognition than Allen did, during his gubernatorial campaign, that abolishing parole in itself won't do.

Even so, complicated cost-benefit analysis remains to be done, and it remains to be seen whether the toughness in Allen's plan will extend to the analysis of it.

Parole eligibility, after all, has never been the same as a guarantee of parole. Members of the Parole Board are gubernatorial appointees; by reducing the "grant rate," as Allen's appointees have done, they can largely put into practice by administrative policy what Allen wants to write into law. The point of his plan, thus, is not to ensure that violent criminals aren't released prematurely during the Allen administration, but to ensure it for long after.

There are good reasons for wanting this, beyond the peace of mind for victims and their families and the political popularity of cracking down. Outrageously, three out of four violent crimes in Virginia are committed by people with prior criminal records.

Yet, if releasing violent prisoners is an unpopular move, why has it been done? One big part of the answer is the sheer cost of incarceration - which is why cost considerations are crucial to the success of Allen's reforms.

The governor's commission figures the no-parole plan will cost only about $250 million in capital outlay over the next decade, and maybe $50 million extra in annual operating costs. The capital-outlay estimate is lower than previous ones partly because the commission anticipates putting more construction money into less costly, lower-security facilities for nonviolent offenders, who will be segregated from the violent ones. That makes sense.

But the $250 million is on top of $600 million for prison construction in the 10 years even without the plan. And what is gained in lower capital costs ought to be figured against the higher operating costs of maintaining security at prisons where all the inmates are violent, where they're all in for many years anyway (with less incentive for "good time" served), and where they're double-celled and double-bunked to keep construction costs down.

The commission makes a strong point in noting the tremendous cost of not putting the violent away for longer periods. A no-parole policy, according to the state's Criminal Justice Research Center, could prevent as much as $2.7 billion over the next decade in the cost of crimes the imprisoned felons otherwise would commit.

Calculating costs that are avoided, and so saved, is also a strong point when applied, as it too seldom is, to figuring the value of other kinds of preventive measures - such as childhood nutrition, improved inner-city education, preschool offerings, mentors for at-risk youth, community policing, drug rehabilitation, and so on.

But with these, as with no-parole policies, the up-front costs also need to be realistically estimated.

by CNB