THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Wednesday, May 10, 1995 TAG: 9505100002
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A16 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Another View
SOURCE: By LAWRENCE GREY
LENGTH: Medium: 76 lines
There is a provision in the Sha ria, the Muslim legal code, which provides that if a person whose right hand has been cut off is caught thieving again, the other hand is not cut off, but the left foot may be amputated. They have that provision because even with criminal sanctions that many Americans regard as Draconian, the Muslim world still has to deal with people who do not learn from being punished and who commit second offenses. So do we.
Nothing so outrages people as when one who has just been let out of prison commits another crime. Politicians pander to this rage by insisting they will do something about ``revolving-door justice'' by getting tough on criminals. The anti-crime bill before Congress is a good example of this kind of pandering.
Congress will provide money to the states to build more prisons but with the condition that the people who are sent to those prisons serve 85 percent of their sentences. Attaching this condition to federal money seems to fly in the face of giving the states more control over local matters; but even at that, it is a bad deal for any state that accepts this money. Building prisons is cheap compared to operating them, and the no-parole condition will make the prison system less efficient and more expensive.
Parole is thought of as being primarily a benefit for the prisoner; and while the prisoner no doubt benefits, the main purpose of parole is to achieve efficiency in criminal punishment. Since the 1920s, studies have been done on people released from prison, and while the inferences to be drawn from these studies often vary depending on the ax to be ground, in virtually all of them the same number keeps popping up. About 55 percent to 60 percent of the convicts released commit another crime within one year of their release.
This 55 percent to 60 percent is almost a constant, like pi. It applies to parolees, to prisoners who have served most or all of their sentence, to violent and non-violent felons alike. Doing away with parole will, of course, eliminate crimes committed by parolees by eliminating parolees. It will not eliminate second offenses.
Under the parole system, the typical course of events for the recidivist is something like this. A criminal gets five years and is out in two. He commits another crime, and goes back to finish the three years still due on his first sentence, then begins the second term. For the second offender, the scenario is like this - two years in prison, one year (or less) out on parole, three years back in, followed by another five years. Under the no-parole system, it is five years in prison, one year (or less) out on parole, five years back in again. In terms of actual time served, for the second offender, there is not really much difference between the parole and no-parole systems. From a public-safety standpoint, the actual number of crimes committed is about the same.
But what about the 40 percent to 45 percent of the guys who will not commit a second crime? Under the parole system, they will have used up only two years of prison cell space and will have achieved what we intend prison to achieve; i.e., that they ``go and sin no more.'' Under the no-parole system, they will have used a full five years of expensive cell space, and that extra three years is a dead waste of taxpayer money.
Any legal system must meet the public's reasonable expectation of justice. Many Americans think our system is not working because they expect that people who are sent to prison will not commit new crimes once they are released. Why would they think such a thing? If the threat of prison did not deter the first offense, it is even less likely to deter the second where the ex-con has already learned the techniques for getting on in prison society.
Getting tough with criminals makes a good sound bite for politicians, but we are already tough enough, perhaps too tough, on those who will not commit a second offense. As for those who will, we are faced with the same frustrating situation as the Muslims who must wonder, even as they lop another body part, why some people never learn. MEMO: Mr. Grey is a retired Ohio Court of Appeals judge.
by CNB