PATAKI SEEKS TO ELIMINATE PAROLE

Truth-In-Sentencing Plan Mirrors Federal Laws That Many Consider A Failure

With his latest proposal to virtually eliminate parole, Gov. George
Pataki may be nudging New York ever closer to a sentencing scheme that
mirrors federal laws that, by many accounts, have been a costly failure.

Pataki is expected to introduce a "truth-in-sentencing" bill Monday
that would mandate specific sentences for crimes and require all
felons to serve at least six-sevenths of their prison terms before
they are eligible for release.

The governor would strip the state parole board of its power to grant
early release. Instead, prisoners would be monitored for up to five
years after serving nearly their full term.

Last year, after a brutal political fight, the Republican governor
pushed the Democrat-dominated Assembly into eliminating parole for
violent felons. This year, his target is all felons, including those
convicted of nonviolent crimes.

Aides say the governor wants to return power to judges -- who often
have less say now than the parole board in how long a prisoner
actually spends in prison -- while eliminating irrational sentencing
discrepancies. Similar offenders, Pataki aides argue, should be
similarly punished.

But critics say the Pataki proposal will inflate the state's spending
on prisons while doing nothing to reduce crime. And they point to the
federal experience as an example.

"That truth-in-sentencing -- that's baloney," said retired Bronx
Supreme Court Justice Burton Roberts. He questioned how much money
would be needed to pay for the prison cells that would house the influx of
felons who
would likely be serving longer sentences.

Federal aid covers part of state prison construction costs related to
keeping violent criminals behind bars longer, but it is not available
for locking up nonviolent felons, according to Joe Conway, spokesman
for the state Division of Budget. Caroline Quartararo, spokeswoman for
the state criminal justice division, said nobody knows what expenses
New York taxpayers would incur if the Legislature adopts Pataki's proposal.

But a lesson may be found in the federal experience.

Thirteen years ago, the federal government abolished parole and
required judges to impose specific sentences. Since then, the federal
prison population has exploded, from less than 60,000 to more than
127,000, and the Federal Bureau of Prisons' budget has doubled since
1989, to $3.4 billion. More than 60 percent of federal prisoners are
drug offenders, and most of them are nonviolent, records show.

Federal judges have expressed grave concern -- and even offense --
over mandatory minimum sentences, particularly in drug cases, and even
some of the most conservative jurists in the country are urging
Congress to scrap the type of mandatory sentencing laws that Pataki
apparently wants the Legislature to enact in New York.

"This type of statute denies the judges . . . the right to bring their
conscience, experience, discretion, and sense of what is just into the
sentencing procedure, and it, in effect, makes a judge a computer,
automatically imposing sentences without regard to what is right and
just," wrote the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a 1991 decision.

Only a few states have gone the route Pataki wants to take New York
and eliminated parole outright. Among them is Virginia, where
criminals such as burglars were on average serving only 20 percent of
their prison term before that state's sentencing laws were revamped in
1995. Virginia still allows judges to deviate from mandatory sentences
in appropriate cases, according to Rick Kern, director of the Virginia
Sentencing Commission, but judges
stick to the guidelines 80 percent of the time.

"We didn't want to be like the federal system, where it's mandatory,"
Kern said. "Our guidelines are not intended to result in cookie-cutter
justice, where every convicted felon gets the same sentence."

Pataki's proposal is linked to an initiative that would modestly
revise the harsh Rockefeller Drug Laws that require judges to impose
15-year minimum sentences on some drug felons.

Some skeptics suspect the administration is motivated more by money
and politics than sound policy considerations. So-called truth-
in-sentencing results in more prisons, they note -- and that
translates into more prison jobs, almost entirely in upstate regions
that are part of the Republican governor's power base.

"There's money being spent to keep people in prisons," said Rochester
defense attorney Donald G. Rehkopf Jr. "If we're talking about
truth-in-sentencing, the truth ought to be what's motivating all of
this."

But defenders of the governor's plan say truth-in-sentencing is an
effective tool for fighting crime and point to data that show an
estimated 40 percent of felons -- violent or otherwise -- return to
prison within three years of parole. Pataki has repeatedly said his
criminal justice initiatives target what he considers the root cause
of crime: criminals.

The proposal to be unveiled tomorrow represents Pataki's third attempt
to revamp New York sentencing statutes since he took office a little
more than four years ago. In 1995, the governor succeeded in reducing
parole for repeat violent felons. Last year, "Jenna's Law," named for an
Albany murder
victim, generally eliminated parole for all violent felons. Now, all
felons are targeted.

"This is the third phase of the three-pronged approach reforming our
sentencing structure, and it's one that the governor feels very
strongly about," said Katherine Lapp, the governor's criminal justice
director.

The federal guideline system, which has generated controversy and
outrage among judges, arose after a comprehensive, lengthy examination
of sentencing.

Except for the minor tinkering with the Rockefeller Drug Laws, offered
as a bargaining chip to win Democratic support according to political
observers, the governor is not seeking any major, comprehensive
overhaul of the sentencing statutes.

"Truth-in-sentencing is a lie," said H. Susan Jeffords, president of
the state Parole Officers Association. "There is a lot the general
public doesn't know, although in a sound bite it sounds good."

Jeffords said that while the Pataki administration has succeeded in
re-drafting some parts of the state's vast and convoluted sentencing
statutes, it has neglected to adequately review the entire scheme and
has failed to recognize that a "reform" in one area may have
unintended consequences in another.

"What I would recommend is a sentencing commission to look at the
whole thing," Jeffords said. "What we have done in the last four years
is piecemeal legislation on the criminal justice system."