Ending parole would mean truth in sentencing

S.C. Attorney General Henry McMaster is a likely candidate for governor in 2010. The popular state official has spent a lot of time talking to Republicans and says a run is likely. In the meantime, he is pushing for what is not only a popular piece of legislation, but one that is practical.

McMaster seeks to reform the state's criminal justice system by abolishing parole for convicted felons. His is not just another get-tough measure, in that it includes important elements regarding alternative sentencing.

McMaster supports bills in both the House and Senate that would end parole for violent crimes, essentially ensuring those convicted would serve at least 85 percent of their sentence -- or 100 percent if they don't behave well behind bars.

The proposal also calls for establishing a "middle court" that would handle nonviolent offenders without sending them to prison, a sensible plan that would curb overcrowding even as the state ensures that violent offenders remain behind bars.

As reported by The Post and Courier, McMaster told Charleston Republicans that middle court, a sort of souped-up probation sentence, would cost only $3,250 per offender per year, much less than the $16,000 it costs to house a prisoner each year.

Since prisoners currently can seek parole after serving only 25 percent or 33 percent of their sentence, McMaster said no one is sure how much time a criminal will remain in jail. And he said some families of victims have made more than 20 trips to Columbia to speak against paroling an offender.

The plan is not about creating unrest in prisons from those who have no incentive to reform. It's about continuing to bring truth to sentencing.

Not allowing someone to be eligible for release at the parole board's discretion would take the guesswork out of the sentencing process, allowing judges, attorneys and victims to "mark their calendars" with a possible date of a criminal's release.

The McMaster plan deserves a close look. Alternatives to jail for some lesser offenders in exchange for truth-in-sentencing for those doing hard time is an approach that would engender support for a judicial system presently seen by the public as handing down too many sentences that mean little in terms of real time served.

A similar bill was put before the Legislature last year. McMaster said the new version has been improved with new ideas and its chances of passing are good.

From The Times and Democrat