Some state legislators feel that Attorney General Henry McMaster’s proposal to abolish parole is the way to go, while others feel it’s a step in the wrong direction.
While McMaster believes that doing away with parole would result in stiffer and more meaningful sentences, legislators seemed to be divided on the issue during a panel discussion earlier this month.
While what McMaster terms “a middle court” could some have some value, Rep. Doug Jennings doesn’t feel abolishing parole would work.
Under the Middle Court model, non-violent offenders would be more likely to receive sentences that focus on education and job training, with less jail time.
But the economic impact on the state’s budget would be “devastating,” Jennings said.
“Abolishing parole … would cost us hundreds of millions of dollars,” he said. “If we abolish parole, clearly we’re going to have to build more prisons, and I don’t think that’s where we need to be headed.”
The Department of Corrections is “struggling like never before,” just trying to maintain discipline and order, Jennings said.
“If you take parole out of the system, you’re going to create behind the walls of prisons complete chaos,” he said. “Where there is no incentive for inmates to obey the rules or be respectful of correctional officers.”
While all legislators agree violent offenders “should be locked up,” the state needs to be seeking non-incarcerating ways of dealing with non-violent offenders, Jennings said.
“Those who we don’t have to feed and clothe and keep behind a prison wall,” he said. “This economy cries out for us to look for ways to save money and still be tough on crime.”
Sen. Jake Knotts believes that taking parole off the table will work.
“We can abolish parole in South Carolina, if we start putting people in jail who need to be in jail,” Knotts said.
Providing incentives for offenders to avoid jail time will be beneficial, he said.
“You put an ankle bracelet on them and you let them work,” Knotts said. “You let them know that when they do to go to jail, when they do keep violating the law and that time comes, that there will be no parole. Five years means five years. 20 years means 20 years.”
The current system puts people in jail for offenses that would be better punished by probation or ankle bracelets, he said.
“We need to start making our probation officers something other than a babysitter or a name-taker,” Knotts said.
Hiring more law enforcement agents is a meaningless gesture if the state doesn’t have the mechanisms — judges, cells, parole officers — in place to deal with arrests made by those officers, he said.
“He’s going to make arrests,” Knotts said. “He’s going to create overcrowding. If you don’t have an outlet to clear that overcrowding, hiring police officers is not the answer.”
Half of the 23,000 inmates in the prison system are non-violent, said Sen. Gerald Malloy.
“There are some real inconstancies in our sentencing system,” he said. “We need to address those.”
Sen. Larry Martin has pre-filed a bill in the Senate calling for the abolition of parole for offenders who have been identified as violent, and also those convicted of some sexual crimes not categorized as violent crimes.
“It would treat all the categories of criminal offenses the same,” Martin said.
Martin’s bill also calls for the establishment of a Middle Court, that would “enable first time offenders not to go to jail,” he said.
“That’s a big part of this whole bill,” Martin said.
Martin does not feel parole abolition would create a nightmare for correctional officers.
“They’re still eligible for parole at 85 percent (of time served),” he said. “It would give them some incentive.”
Inmates can also be tried and sentenced for crimes committed while incarcerated, Martin said.
“They would be charged and tried and sentenced for additional time,” he said. “Non-violent offenders don’t traditionally act up to that degree. It’s mainly violent offenders.”
Post a Comment
