THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, August 17, 1994 TAG: 9408170433
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A1 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: BY MARGARET EDDS, STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Long : 163 lines
Violent criminals would spend at least twice as long behind bars - and perhaps up to seven times as long - under a sweeping overhaul of Virginia's prison sentencing practices proposed Tuesday by the Allen administration.
Critics were stunned by the unexpectedly low cost of the plan - estimated at about $250 million for new prisons over 10 years, plus up to $54 million in added annual operating costs. Some had predicted a price tag as high as $3 billion when Gov. George F. Allen advocated eliminating parole and overhauling sentencing during his campaign last fall.
The recommendations, contained in a subcommittee report to Allen's parole commission, include eliminating parole by Jan. 1, 1995, and requiring future prisoners to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences.
The report offers the clearest glimpse to date of a parole-reform plan that is to be released in full next week and that will be considered at a special legislative session in mid-September.
Allen has not said how he will finance the proposed changes, which come on the heels of substantial prison-building in the 1990s.
Even without the Allen plan, known as Proposal X, annual prison operating costs are projected to grow by $370 million and prison-construction costs by at least $620 million over the next decade.
``Once these recommendations are enacted into law . . . Virginia's citizens will finally have a criminal-justice system they can trust,'' said Sen. Kenneth W. Stolle, R-Virginia Beach, who headed the parole-commission subcommittee that drafted the sentencing recommendations.
Former U.S. Attorney General William Barr and former federal prosecutor Richard Cullen, co-chairmen of the parole commission, predicted that Virginians would be much safer if the proposed changes were approved, because a core group of violent criminals would be removed from society.
But some others were more cautious. ``We're getting ready to promise something to the people of Virginia, and I hope to God that we deliver,'' countered Arlington Sen. Edward M. Holland, who represents the legislature's Democratic majority on the subcommittee.
Observers ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Democratic side of the legislature questioned whether Allen's plan can be accomplished at the relatively low cost projected.
``It sounds awfully low to me. . . . I'm amazed. I'm very skeptical,'' said House Speaker Thomas W. Moss Jr., D-Norfolk.
``I'm shocked they can do it for that amount of money,'' said Julie McConnell, associate director of the American Civil Liberties Union.
But members of the parole commission and their administrative staff said a sophisticated computer analysis has allowed them to project that Proposal X will add only about 3,000 inmates to the state system over the next decade.
Larger growth will come in the second decade. State officials said attempting to project the higher costs for the second decade would be a meaningless exercise. Demographic trends could change significantly, for instance, or crime might be reduced because of Proposal X and other developments, they said.
At the heart of the Allen plan is a revision of the voluntary guidelines used by judges in sentencing criminals. Current guidelines are based on the sentences historically given in Virginia. Under the change, the sentences would reflect the amount of time criminals are actually spending in prison - a much lower figure.
The result is that while some sentences might appear to decrease under the new guidelines, the lack of parole means that prisoners would end up spending more time behind bars.
Judges could still depart from the guidelines, but they would have to explain why in writing. Juries, which impose about 6 percent of the sentences in criminal cases, would be affected only indirectly by the changes.
The plan, which would apply only to those criminals entering the system after Jan. 1, recommends that no penalty be less than the time currently served for a specific crime. But individuals who are convicted of a violent crime or who have a violent crime in their histories would serve significantly longer sentences.
For instance, the average length of sentence for a Virginian convicted of first-degree murder between 1988 and 1992 was 40 years and five months. But the average time served was only 12.4 years. Under Proposal X, the time served would double to 24.8 years if the inmate had no prior record or other aggravating circumstance.
However, if the inmate had been convicted previously of a violent crime with a maximum penalty of less than 40 years, the time served would jump to 49.6 years. Currently, inmates in that category are serving an average of 14.1 years.
If the previous violent crime has a maximum penalty of more than 40 years, a murderer would be sentenced to life in prison under Proposal X. Inmates in that category currently serve an average of 14.7 years.
The plan also calls for a new system of geriatric release and gubernatorial clemency, since a larger number of prisoners would be spending most of their lives in prison.
Cullen said he cannot promise that the plan will reduce Virginia's crime rate, largely because the number of crime-prone 16- to 24-year-olds is due to begin growing next year.
But the crime rate will not increase as quickly as it would without Proposal X, Cullen said.
Critics, however, lamented that the administration is not focusing more effort on crime-prevention techniques. ``If you're just going to throw money at the back end, it's not going to solve the problem,'' McConnell said.
``Without prevention, it's just an endless cycle.'' ILLUSTRATION: Color graphic
PROPOSAL X
Virginia Gov. George F. Allen's criminal-justice reform plan would
force violent criminals to spend two to seven times as long behind
bars. Legislators are to vote on it in a special session next
month.
[Graphic includes color photo of Gov. George F. Allen.]
For copy of graphic, see microfilm
Color Chart
LONGER SENTENCES
[Includes figures for First-Degree Murder, Forcible Rape, Grand
Larceny and Burglary in terms of Current Sentencing and Proposed
Sentencing]
Source: Department of Criminal Justice Services
For copy of chart, see microfilm
HIGHLIGHTS
ABOLISH PAROLE FOR NEW OFFENDERS: Effective Jan. 1, 1995
TRUTH IN SENTENCING: Revise and expand sentencing guidelines to
reflect actual time served in prison
INCREASE SENTENCES OF VIOLENT OFFENDERS: 100 percent for first-time
offenders; 300 percent to 700 percent for offenders with prior
violent convictions
INCREASE SENTENCES FOR NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS: 300 percent to 500
percent for those with prior violent convictions; special
clemency/release program for older inmates
NEW SENTENCING COMMISSION: Will recommend changes in sentencing
guidelines
PROBATION: Continue probation for up to three years after release
COST: About $850 million in new prisons in the next decade; the cost
is about $250 million more than the state already planned to spend
IN OTHER STATES
LOUISIANA
In 1992, it had the highest incarceration rate of any state, 478
per 100,000 residents. But it also ranked sixth nationally in total
crime that year. It increased the sentences of all criminals but
didn't make sentences dramatically longer for violent offenders.
WASHINGTON
In 1984, it enacted reforms similar to those Allen advocates: no
discretionary parole for new offenders; sentencing guidelines for
judges; and increased prison time for violent offenders. Since then,
the violent-crime rate has increased 43 percent, more than the
national average.
KEYWORDS: PRISON SYSTEM CRIME PAROLE SENTENCING
GOVERNOR'S COMMISSION ON PAROLE ABOLITION AND SENTENCING REFORM
by CNB