Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, August 5, 1993 TAG: 9309100369
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A13 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Ray L. Garland
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
When asked in the second gubernatorial debate to endorse or repudiate Clinton's policy on homosexuals in the military, Terry gave a two-word answer, ``I repudiate.'' On the far more important question of the president's package of tax increases, she was equally emphatic: ``the last thing that we need now ... is more taxes.''
That was fodder for one of George Allen's favorite lines, calling attention to a recent fund-raiser at the luxurious home of Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV in Washington. ``She was up there sippin' wine and nibblin' cheese in the Rockefeller mansion ... with Hillary Rodham Clinton. I hope that you mentioned to them that you disagreed with their policies.'' George, you hope in vain. But just to make sure the message was muted south of the Potomac, press photographers were barred.
Facing long odds at the start, Allen is making a fight of it. During his closing remarks in the debate before the Virginia Bar Association, Allen turned to Terry and challenged her to a series of debates before television cameras in the state's seven largest media markets. Whereupon, he offered his hand ``to shake on it.'' Without comment or relish, Terry shook his hand. The crowd of lawyers, well-placed to appreciate a point scored, cheered.
But the candidates had just left the stage when a Terry spokesman told the press, ``She didn't agree to anything.'' That there will be more debates seems a foregone conclusion, though Terry is likely to try keeping them at a minimum, which will be too bad.
Meanwhile, the candidates are sharpening their focus on issues they see working for them. Terry is talking of providing additional funds for the state's most impoverished localities to reduce class size in kindergarten through third grade, while Allen hammers away at abolishing parole.
Logically, a lower pupil-teacher ratio in the primary grades would be a proper priority, especially among ``at-risk'' children, but steady progress over many years in reducing class size in all grades has yet to pay very obvious dividends.
Terry proposed a maximum of 21 students per teacher for grades K-3 during a stop in Roanoke, which already has an average 20-to-1 ratio in these grades and hopes to have no more than 15 students per primary-grade teacher within a few years.
Instead of focusing on reducing class sizes, which would require more or larger schools, perhaps a better approach would be for the state to fund teacher aides. Any reasonably intelligent and motivated person, given a little training, should be able to render valuable assistance to teachers and pupils in the primary grades. And do it for a lot less money than fully licensed personnel.
But Terry would never advocate enlarging the role of teacher aides because that would run afoul of one of her primary benefactors, the Virginia Education Association. It's merely unfortunate that this approach might make a lot more sense. You could have two adults working with 30 students in a class, or a 15-to-1 ratio, for no more money than it would cost to implement Terry's maximum of 21 students per teacher.
Far more complicated is Allen's idea of abolishing parole. He estimates that it would cost $683 million to build the additional prison space needed, and $119 million more in annual maintenance. State experts have said it would cost a good deal more, at least twice as much.
To get anywhere close to Allen's figure, you would have to join the abolition of parole to a comprehensive review of sentences imposed. If there's to be no parole, serious consideration would have to be given to reducing some of the time now routinely handed out in the expectation that most of it will not be served.
According to Clarence Jackson, chairman of the state parole board, a typical first-time inmate with a 10-year sentence is eligible for parole after 2.5 years. If he has received the maximum good-behavior credit, his first parole eligibility will occur after only 1.5 years!
Since 1970, Virginia's population has increased by almost 50 percent while its jail census has gone up by 100 percent. Yet, Allen claims, federal statistics show that the rate of parole in Virginia is substantially higher than the national average. In other words, we put more in and let more out.
The parole board's official report for 1990 shows it granted parole in 24 percent of all cases heard involving violent crimes and in 62 percent of those involving nonviolent crimes. It should be noted that these figures do not pertain solely to paroles granted at first eligibility. Many had been previously heard and denied. It should also be noted that several categories classified as nonviolent crime, such as arson, burglary and auto theft, have a great potential for violence and harm.
The problem with parole is obvious: a significant percentage of all those released will be back, convicted of new crimes. As Jackson puts it, `` ... there's no one that can ever predict what a person's going to do.'' But he also claims that 60 percent don't return.
But crime can pay. Undoubtedly, there are examples of unlucky people caught after their very first serious crime. But common sense tells us that for every crime in which the perpetrator is caught and successfully prosecuted, there are many more where he's not.
There are respectable studies, based in large measure on confidential interviews with inmates, that support Allen's basic contention that society comes out ahead in purely economic terms when it jails those with established felonious tendencies for as long as possible. Obviously, such studies, like parole itself, are based on subjective criteria unlikely to satisfy partisans on either side of the debate.
Keywords:
POLITICS
by CNB