THE ROLE OF PAROLE

THE MASSACHUSETTS criminal justice system, bound by rigid sentencing
practices and ballooning prison budgets, needs to put greater emphasis
on rehabilitation. A first step toward righting the balance would be
passage of a bill to allow parole for certain nonviolent drug offenders.

The bill has been stuck in the Criminal Justice Committee of the
Legislature for more than a year. The House chairman of the committee,
James Vallee of Franklin, said in an interview last week that the
proposal is part of a larger package of sentencing changes under
consideration.

Sentencing reform has been an issue on Beacon Hill since 1996, when
the Massachusetts Sentencing Commission offered a plan to give judges
greater discretion in imposing prison terms and reduce the number of
people imprisoned for minor offenses. The plan has stalled amid a
festering dispute between supporters and those who would impose
harsher sentences.

Given this impasse, it make sense to try an incremental approach, one
that would not change the existing sentencing structure. Under current
law, punishment for drug crimes is especially punitive. Mandatory
sentences range from two years for drug possession with intent to
distribute if the offender is caught within 1,000 feet of a school to
15 years in prison for sale of 200 grams of cocaine or more.

The bill, proposed by Senator Cynthia S. Creem of Newton, would change
none of that, but it would make anyone convicted of these crimes --
including those now in prison -- eligible for parole after serving
two-thirds of the sentence. The Parole Board would review, and could
reject, each request.

The Sentencing Commission estimates that 650 inmates would become
eligible for parole under the bill, and Creem expects that half might
be released. That number would slightly reduce the overcrowding in
Massachusetts prisons and houses of correction, where 22,000 inmates
are crammed into spaces designed for 16,000.

Creem's bill would address a glaring racial disparity in sentencing.
Eighty-one percent of those who receive the mandatory drug sentences
are minorities, compared with 34 percent for other criminal
convictions.

Most important, parole would also provide a supervised transition
between prison and full release into society. It makes no sense to
dump these people on the street, as is done now, especially if they
have a drug problem, without sufficient monitoring to discourage them
from committing more crimes.

The bill would save perhaps $10 million a year, according to Creem's
estimate. With correctional spending soaring to $860 million and
health care and other needs making strong demands on the state budget,
cost saving is not something that can be ignored, especially when the
plan that would produce it offers a better approach to these
nonviolent offenders.