HONEST TALK ABOUT PAROLE

Gov. George Pataki's call to end parole for felons convicted of violent
offenses may resonate with voters concerned about crime. But he is doing
little more than playing to general frustrations and fears. If Mr. Pataki is
serious about eliminating parole in New York, then he has to begin the hard
work of producing a comprehensive plan that will reform the state's criminal
sentencing system, of which parole is only a part.

New York operates under a traditional parole system in which offenders are
sentenced by judges to a range of time in prison, such as 5 to 15 years,
rather than a specific term. After a prisoner has served the low end of that
sentence range, he is eligible for parole. The vast majority of offenders
are released after serving two-thirds of their maximum sentences. After
release, offenders are subject to parole supervision for the balance of
their sentences. In theory parole rewards rehabilitation, while also giving
the state some control over offenders as they re-enter society.

But the reality is much bleaker. Release decisions by the parole board often
seem arbitrary, leading to differing outcomes for people convicted of the
same crime. Questions about racial disparity in parole decisions have often
been raised. Critics also charge that parole breeds public anger and
cynicism when offenders are released before their sentences end.

Many states have met these criticisms head on by replacing parole with
determinate sentencing plans in which all offenders are given specific
prison terms, allowing only small reductions for good behavior. Instead of
setting very long maximum sentences that almost no one serves out,
determinate sentencing sets shorter terms that convicts actually serve.
Moving to determinate sentencing requires adjusting sentences for most if
not all crimes. Many states, in revamping their sentencing plans, have also
created alternatives to incarceration for lesser crimes.

Mr. Pataki's proposal would do none of this. It would simply make offenders
serve out the maximum sentences under the old parole system. He would in
effect be doubling or tripling current sentences for violent crimes. This
plan would cause an expansion of the prison population, which has more than
doubled in the past 15 years, and add enormous new costs.

There is little evidence that public safety would be served by lengthening
sentences across the board. If Mr. Pataki is serious about creating a more
rational system that eliminates parole, he would have to be open to reducing
sentences for some crimes. A rigorous debate about parole and sentencing
reform would be welcome in New York State, especially if it caused policy
makers to repeal the Rockefeller drug laws that impose senselessly long
mandatory sentences for many small-time, nonviolent drug offenders. So far,
Mr. Pataki's comments have not touched on these real issues.

Copyright 1998 The New York Times Company