THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, September 15, 1994 TAG: 9409140466
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A11 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Special Report
SERIES: Facing the Fear: Paying the Price
This series is a combined project of The Associated Press, the Daily
Press of Newport News, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, The Roanoke Times
& World-News, and The Virginian-Pilot and The Ledger-Star.
SOURCE: BY TONY WHARTON, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: Long : 138 lines
Virginians love the idea of changing the parole system. It's paying for change they're not sure about.
In a statewide poll taken this summer, 74 percent of the registered voters surveyed said they think crime could be reduced by having criminals serve their full prison sentences, even if it means they serve shorter sentences.
Yet only 42 percent said they are ready to pay higher taxes to finance the reforms proposed by Gov. George Allen, and 35 percent said they were willing for the state to borrow the money.
The poll of 539 people by Media General Inc. was conducted on behalf of The Associated Press, the Daily Press of Newport News, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, the Roanoke Times & World-News and The Virginian-Pilot and The Ledger-Star.
The news organizations also held a series of eight community conversations around the state, involving more than 90 people. It was a chance for people to do more than respond to media questions; it was an opportunity for the groups to grapple with the problem among themselves.
People believe that parole somehow doesn't work. They don't like the idea of criminals serving one-sixth of the sentence that a judge and jury decided on.
``When the guy did what he did and the jury and the judge decided that he should serve 15 years, that was because of the prevailing situation at that time, and that's what should stick,'' said A.G. ``Augie'' Biedenbender, a retired radio personality in Franklin. ``Now if he gets out in just a couple of years, presently the guy down the road a piece thinks, well, hell, I don't have to worry about this thing, I can get out in five years, too.
``And therefore the deterrent aspect of incarceration is near about obliterated.''
But if you suggest abolishing parole, they're not so sure. Consider this exchange, also in Franklin:
``That's a broad statement - end parole - parole for everybody,'' said the Rev. Carl DeSouza, a Roman Catholic priest.
``All violent offenders?'' said Nancy Bowden, a Franklin real estate agent. ``What about the shades of difference that you were speaking of - the woman that kills her husband after many years of abuse.''
Russell L. Powell, 62, said, ``I don't think you can do that. Not across the board.''
``Who would you get to work in the (prison) system?'' said Audrey H. Milteer, a day care provider. ``There's no way you can employ me in there. Because if they get life with no parole, who are they going to listen to?''
``What guards are going in there and check on this guy?'' said Joey D. Galloway, 38.
This ambivalence also was reflected in the statewide poll. Asked whether abolishing parole and building more prisons would reduce crime, 47 percent of those polled said no and 44 percent said yes.
Many who participated in the community conversations were willing to send more criminals to prison for longer periods.
Craig Day, 35, a geographer in Arlington, said, ``Talking about violent criminals, I have no problem with them staying in there for life. That's the No. 1 thing and it's absolutely unacceptable. That person needs to be out of circulation.''
They also applauded Allen's campaign to pass a ``truth in sentencing'' law, because it would require courts to sentence criminals to the actual sentence they will serve.
``I understand that if they really want 2 1/2 years they go for 10,'' said Ann Hoffer, 50, a federal employee in Arlington. ``I think that is a sham, and I'm all for doing away with that.''
Statewide, many people agreed. In the Media General poll, 74 percent of those responding said they were willing to sentence criminals to somewhat shorter terms if the criminal served the entire term.
Brendan McCormack, 46, a manager in Richmond, said, ``If you want to give someone a little slack of two years, fine, but not 50 percent of the sentence.
``But we've got to keep in mind it's real easy to say put them in jail, keep them in jail. You've got to put these people somewhere and if we're going to make that kind of long-term financial commitment, why not get at the cause of the problems, why are people doing this to start with? If we're going to spend that kind of money on bricks and mortar to keep them in there then why don't we go and find out what the problem is.''
That was the attitude of many other conversation participants: It's fine to build more prisons, but if we don't do more than that, 10 years from now we'll be building yet more prisons to house another generation.
McCormack's neighbors in Richmond wanted to know whether Allen's plans go beyond conservative politics.
Eva Brinkley, 63 and retired, said, ``I'd like to see him forget that he's a Democrat or a Republican or whatever and just be interested in getting something done with people. . . . Forget about the politics of the situation and try to really actively seek a solution with people.''
They worried, too, about the cost of Allen's reforms.
Franklin substitute teacher Susan Vaughan said: ``When you start thinking about it, then OK, wait a minute, what are we talking about? What does Franklin have to contribute to this? . . . Virginia Beach I'm not worried about. They're large and wealthy. But Franklin isn't.''
In the Media General poll, voters were deeply divided over the cost issue. A little more than half of those answering said they don't want to pay more taxes for these reforms, and they don't want the state borrowing money to do it, either.
The survey, conducted July 29-Aug. 8, entailed interviewing 539 Virginia voters. The poll's margin of error is plus or minus 4.3 percentage points.
Newport News retired teacher Juanita Slack, 62, said, ``Is there any way we can have guarantees that a raise in taxes would really channel right into the penal system and into protection for neighborhoods and children and such? Everybody here seems to agree we're willing to pay for it because we know that's the only way we can get more things done. But do we get any guarantees that that's really where the money will be spent?''
Bob Lamons, 38, an Arlington teacher, may have put it best: ``You're going to pay either way. With your TV and your car, or with your taxes.''
Another question that puzzled Virginians was, how can they judge whether elected officials are truly providing leadership on crime and punishment? Most politicians are serving two-year or four-year terms, and no one expects the problem to be solved that soon. So how do you evaluate them?
Lamons said, ``You have to follow how your congressman votes, and that takes some effort and some work, more than just reading in the paper to see what the votes are about today. . . . Not just on the crime bill, but what are they doing about welfare reform, about keeping women home with families. .
Jim Cisco, 70, a retired federal employee from Alexandria, said the key is prioritizing: ``You have to have a short-range and a long-range plan. Short range, get to your Congress people and say, at least pass this crime bill, let's pass a reform bill. That's a start. Then we have to develop a long-range plan.'' ILLUSTRATION: Graphic
Photos
A Conversation on Crime
[interviews with citizens]
For a copy of graphic, see microfilm
KEYWORDS: PAROLE VIRGINIA SERIES by CNB