'NO PAROLE' LAW IS OK, IF IT'S WRITTEN WITH CARE

On the most attention-grabbing parts of his legislative package concerning
criminal justice, Gov. Don Siegelman is on the right track. If lawmakers
are careful with the fine print, to ensure that the bills are narrowly
tailored, then both the House and Senate ought to pass the governor's
proposals.

Mr. Siegelman wants a bill that would require repeat violent offenders to
serve their whole sentences with no possibility of parole. He also proposes
that first-time violent offenders should serve at least 85 percent of their
sentences before being eligible for parole, and he wants to let jurors and
judges impose a death sentence on repeat sexual offenders if the victim is
younger than 13.

These are reasonable crime-fighting proposals. The logic is simple: If
somebody prone to violence is behind bars, he obviously will not be free to
commit more heinous acts.

But the key here is the word "violent." The stricter sentencing rules
should not apply to non-violent crimes such as petty theft.

The Register editorial board has several times joined a growing chorus of
citizens who promote "alternative sentencing" options, such as closely
supervised probation or substantial community service combined with
educational requirements, for those convicted of crimes that do not include
violence. The goals are both to avoid prison overcrowding and to promote
the rehabilitation of convicts whose behavior has not been too egregious.

But a violent offender is another matter entirely, and a repeatedly violent
offender forfeits all claim to leniency. The cause of public safety demands
that such criminals be kept off the streets.

Nationally, the trend in the 1990s toward variations of
"three-strikes-you're-out" laws, which mandate life sentences without
parole for triple-

offender felons, was matched by a marked decrease in violent crime. As
several scholarly studies have noted, it is difficult to prove a direct
cause-and-effect relationship, but there is reason to believe that the
spate of "three strikes" laws played an important role.

On the other hand, government watchdog groups have strenuously criticized
California's "three strikes" law for being overly broad, because it
imprisons for life even those whose third offense is non-violent. As a
result, California faces a severe shortage of prison space, at far more
cost to taxpayers. Also, because plea bargains are not available for those
indicted for third offenses, the criminal court dockets have been overburdened.

Gov. Siegelman and the Alabama Legislature ought to carefully define which
offenses qualify for the "no parole" treatment. If they target only those
who commit the more heinous crimes, legislators could serve their
constituents well by passing the governor's package.