Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, August 30, 1994 TAG: 9409020023
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A4 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE:
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Then they should pass it.
Will it really save $2.7 billion in crime costs over the next decade? Will the price of a no-parole policy really be only $1.2 billion to $1.3 billion in prison construction and increased operating costs over the next decade? If someone else comes up with a lower estimate for the former and a higher estimate for the latter, no one should be surprised.
Allen will no longer be governor when most of the bills are paid. It's a good bet he has underestimated the costs. Responsible legislators will probe his financial assumptions in any case.
But Allen's plan, to its credit, shows some recognition of the cost problem by making compromises with standard law-and-order rhetoric:
Though actual time served by violent criminals is to be lengthened considerably, the nominal sentences for a number of crimes would be reduced.
This is necessary for there to be a genuine no-parole policy that Virginia can afford. The Allen plan avoids a traditional political gimmick: lengthening nominal sentences, to look tough on crime, without also dealing with the consequences, such as the need for more prison space. Use of that gimmick is a major contributor to helter-skelter parole policies.
The plan's backers - most importantly, of course, Gov. Allen - are showing a willingness to pay for it.
Whatever the long-term cost-benefit analysis, the short-term fact is that longer sentences mean up-front costs. The administration's price tag of $837 million in prison-construction costs and $400 million in operating costs over the next decade may prove low; in any event, it represents a major commitment of resources. Given the state's excellent credit rating, the governor is correct to call for bond issues (probably Virginia Public Building Authority bonds at first, then lower-interest general-obligation bonds later if approved in a referendum next year) for capital outlay.
The proposals distinguish sharply between violent and nonviolent crime, and put most drug offenses in the nonviolent category.
Actual time served by violent offenders is to rise dramatically; actual time served by nonviolent offenders is to stay about the same. Moreover, the plan calls for those convicted of nonviolent crimes to be incarcerated in minimum-security facilities, including a number of new ones, which supposedly will offer job-training, drug-treatment and education programs. This opens spaces for violent prisoners in maximum- and medium-security prisons, thereby reducing prison construction costs and focusing on the need for maximum protection from the worst predators.
Allen and his Commission on Parole Abolition & Sentencing Reform have advanced the issue from a political applause line to a practical plan. In our view, they could do more by way of crime prevention. But Allen unquestionably was elected on a mandate to unscramble current sentencing and parole laws, and to ensure that violent criminals are kept in prison for a long time. Both initiatives are, as well, needed and overdue.
In calling the special session and putting forth the plan, Allen is keeping faith with voters. If the assembly's Democratic majorities resist a Republican governor simply for partisan reasons, they'll be doing no good for either themselves or the commonwealth.
by CNB