SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS LAW DENYING PAROLE

The Iowa high court rejected a convicted man's claim that not allowing
parole was against the Constitution.

A new get-tough-on-criminals law that eliminates parole for a list of
violent crimes was upheld by the Iowa Supreme Court Thursday.

In what legal authorities say is the first test of the law, the high court
rejected the claim by convicted robber Orlando Ramirez that no parole was
cruel and unusual punishment and therefore unconstitutional.

In the Cerro Gordo County case, the court said, "We afford substantial
deference to the Legislature in setting the penalties for crimes. Only
extreme sentences that are grossly disproportionate to the crime can
conceivably constitute cruel and unusual punishment."

Ramirez, who was arrested in 1997 after an incident at a Wal-Mart store,
wasn't one of those cases, the court said.

Ramirez allegedly took items from the store including a knife that he
pointed at an employee. He was convicted of first-degree robbery, which
carries a 25-year sentence.

Under the 1996 law, Ramirez must serve a minimum of 85 percent of his
sentence, or 21 1/2 years.

Lawmakers allowed inmates to reduce their sentences by up to 15 percent
through good behavior. The effect was to guarantee that the inmate would
serve at least 85 percent of the sentence.

Parole was eliminated for inmates convicted of second-degree murder,
second-degree sexual abuse, second-degree kidnapping, first-degree robbery
or second-degree robbery. The law had already eliminated parole
possibilities for inmates in prison for first-degree murder, first-degree
sexual assault or first-degree kidnapping.

"It was certainly in the Legislature's purview to do what they did," said
State Sen. Andy McKean, R-Anamosa, chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee. He is also co-chairman of the Iowa Sentencing Commission, which
is studying changing the sentencing laws.

McKean said that there are signs that the no-parole law may be partly
responsible for the decline of violent crime in Iowa.

"I don't think there really is any hard evidence at this point, but I think
there is some indication," he said.

The law, however, may be in jeopardy after the commission completes its
study.

"There is a possibility that changes might be recommended," he said. "We are
taking a look in a systematic way at the penalties, trying to put together
an approach that is consistent. That may be tougher sentences or lighter
sentences."