THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, September 8, 1994 TAG: 9409080005
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A14 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Editorial
LENGTH: Short : 49 lines
The time for Governor Allen to have done his homework was before he claimed in June that his proposed sentencing reforms would have prevented seven specific crimes.
It turns out, as detailed Sunday by reporters Margaret Edds and Bob Evans, that of the seven criminals cited by the governor in June, Proposal X would have applied definitely to only one and possibly to one other. So his Proposal X to abolish parole and establish truth in sentencing - good measures both - takes a hit it needn't have. And the governor must spend valuable time backpedaling over this error and trying to redirect attention to the good Proposal X will do if enacted rather than evils it would not have prevented.
The carelessness of the error is both illustrated and rectified by the list the governor's staff has since compiled - and presumably checked and double-checked - of 18 criminals who committed 28 violent crimes they would not have been on the street to commit had Proposal X been in force. And the arguments raised against the proposal have their own problems of persuasiveness.
According to Sunday's story, for instance, critics of Proposal X point out that it would have prevented 1.9 percent of murders, 1 percent of reported rapes, 0.6 percent of reported robberies and 0.5 percent of aggravated assaults in the seven-year period the governor cites. Not a lot, yes? Yes, a lot - if it were your family member, friend or colleague victimized by one of the 78 murderers Proposal X would have kept off the street.
If key Democratic lawmakers' key argument will be whether the crimes Proposal X prevent are worth its cost, Governor Allen will have more than the high price of crime and the savings from prevention to prove its cost-effectiveness. He'll have an argument liberals often make but abandon when it comes to crime's victims: Just what is a life worth?
The six wrong citations shouldn't prove a fatal error for Proposal X. It's a commonsensical, discerning approach that offers the public some integrity in the criminal-justice system and more protection from offenders who are repeatedly violent. It offers victims some justice. It presents offenders the carrot of educational, vocational and substance-abuse therapy that can turn their lives around, and the stick of increasing incarceration if they don't.
That's why victims and families of victims of the criminals the governor cited erroneously nevertheless support his proposal. That's why the General should, too. by CNB