MoMo
10-17-2004, 10:07 AM
Friday, October 15, 2004
Beyond no parole
Virginia's system works reasonably well. Now it should work on rehabilitation.
The Roanoke Times
Virginia's no-parole system seems to work - up to a point.
Violent crime, after all, is down. Murders have dropped from 570 in 1994, the year Gov. George Allen signed legislation abolishing parole in the state's prisons, to 408 in 2003. But, then, crime is cyclical. Many factors affect the rate, so narrowing the cause of upward or downward trends to any single condition is well nigh impossible. Still, common sense suggests that the longer society keeps its most violent wrongdoers behind bars, the safer everyone else will be.
Violent inmates account for just 15 percent of Virginia's prison population, however.
Common sense also suggests that when ex-convicts re-enter society - and, yes, most people who go to prison still get out, eventually - they will be far less likely to commit new crimes if they have the basic tools needed to live law-abiding lives.
Sometimes a need is as basic as work boots after a prisoner gets out the door. Most times, prisoners need counseling and education before they get that far, or they will end up right back behind bars.
Here is where the "I'm tough,"-"I'm tougher,"-"I'm toughest"-on-crime line of political pandering fails all of the people of Virginia.
Allen won the governorship with his promise to abolish parole, and the change remains politically popular. But those tiresome spoil-sports, prisoner advocates, are right in saying more resources need to be spent on rehabilitation and diversion.
Virginia can plan to spend $68 million and $73 million on new medium-security prisons without a ripple of public protest. But an effective post-release program such as Virginia CARES - which for a pittance helps ex-convicts stay out of prison - must struggle year to year on federal grants to survive.
Prisoner advocates also raise a legitimate question with their claim that inmates convicted before the no-parole policy went into effect are affected nevertheless by a hardened attitude. If so, that would not be fair.
And fairness is basic to justice
Beyond no parole
Virginia's system works reasonably well. Now it should work on rehabilitation.
The Roanoke Times
Virginia's no-parole system seems to work - up to a point.
Violent crime, after all, is down. Murders have dropped from 570 in 1994, the year Gov. George Allen signed legislation abolishing parole in the state's prisons, to 408 in 2003. But, then, crime is cyclical. Many factors affect the rate, so narrowing the cause of upward or downward trends to any single condition is well nigh impossible. Still, common sense suggests that the longer society keeps its most violent wrongdoers behind bars, the safer everyone else will be.
Violent inmates account for just 15 percent of Virginia's prison population, however.
Common sense also suggests that when ex-convicts re-enter society - and, yes, most people who go to prison still get out, eventually - they will be far less likely to commit new crimes if they have the basic tools needed to live law-abiding lives.
Sometimes a need is as basic as work boots after a prisoner gets out the door. Most times, prisoners need counseling and education before they get that far, or they will end up right back behind bars.
Here is where the "I'm tough,"-"I'm tougher,"-"I'm toughest"-on-crime line of political pandering fails all of the people of Virginia.
Allen won the governorship with his promise to abolish parole, and the change remains politically popular. But those tiresome spoil-sports, prisoner advocates, are right in saying more resources need to be spent on rehabilitation and diversion.
Virginia can plan to spend $68 million and $73 million on new medium-security prisons without a ripple of public protest. But an effective post-release program such as Virginia CARES - which for a pittance helps ex-convicts stay out of prison - must struggle year to year on federal grants to survive.
Prisoner advocates also raise a legitimate question with their claim that inmates convicted before the no-parole policy went into effect are affected nevertheless by a hardened attitude. If so, that would not be fair.
And fairness is basic to justice