THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, November 3, 1996 TAG: 9611030044
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: NORTH CAROLINA
SOURCE: BY PAUL SOUTH, STAFF WRITER
LENGTH: 77 lines
A proposed constitutional amendment on Tuesday's statewide ballot would allow judges a wider range of choices in the punishments they could impose on convicted criminals.
Since 1868, the Constitution of North Carolina has limited the punishment judges may impose on convicted criminals to ``death, imprisonment, fines, removal from office and prohibition to run for public office.''
The amendment, sponsored in the General Assembly by Sen. Charlie Albertson, D-Duplin, would expand sentencing options for judges to include: community service, counseling, restitution and alternative restraints on liberty.
Supporters say the amendment will ease overcrowding in state prisons, opening more space for repeat criminals and violent offenders, and saving state tax dollars.
Opponents say the amendment is not needed because the 1993 passage of the state's Structured Sentencing Law.
Structured sentencing, which abolished rules that allowed model prisoners to have their sentences reduced or modified, also allows judges to impose many of the alternative punishments that would be included in the constitutional amendment.
James E. ``Mike'' Roark, senior field director of the Justice Fellowship in Raleigh, a group that studies the criminal justice system, said that while structured sentencing has helped, it is not enough. He favors passage of the amendment.
Some criminals may believe that, if they choose jail time, they will be released early because of prison overcrowding, Roark said.
``Today's prisons are still overcrowded to an unprecedented extent,'' he said.
Many nonviolent offenders often take advantage of the criminal justice system, Roark said. ``Many of these people are petty thieves who avoid paying back their victims' restitution. They pick their punishment and thumb their noses at law-abiding North Carolinians.''
But State Rep. Paul Luebke, D-Durham, who is also a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina-Greensboro, says that while he supports alternative sentencing for nonviolent offenders, the amendment is not needed.
Luebke said: ``The argument that this amendment will keep criminals from `beating the system' is moot for several reasons.''
He cited a prison construction program launched by the General Assembly in 1993 - which added 6,000 new prison beds in the state in 1995 - and truth-in-setencing laws, which ended parole.
Roark disputes Luebke's claims. While structured sentencing may be a temporary solution, a constitutional amendment would make the sentencing options more permanent, he said. MEMO: ABOUT THE AMENDMENT
THE AMENDMENT
This provision, also known as the Albertson Amendment, would expand
the scope of punishment for convicted criminals allowed under the
Constitution of North Carolina to include probation, restitution,
community service, work programs or other restraints on liberty.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE AMENDMENT
The amendment would clear up all doubts about the courts' ability to
impose alternative punishments, with or without the defendant's consent.
Prison overcrowding is still at an all-time high, and thus prisoners
will still take the chance that they will move through the prison system
quickly, and avoid paying restitution to their victims.
The amendment would legitimize alternative punishments, which are
especially appropriate for nonviolent, noncareer offenders.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE AMENDMENT
Constitutions should be amended only when necessary. This amendment
involves a technical change. It is not clear that a defendant's consent
to an alternative punishment is required.
This amendment is not needed because the Structured Sentencing Act
abolished good time, parole, gain time and allows judges to impose
alternative punishments.
Prisoners would still have the right to refuse alternative
punishments.
Criminals have rights and should be able to refuse alternative
punishments. by CNB