Violent criminals must stay in prison - The United States of Violence: A Special Section - Cover Story

Convicted felons who have violated Federal firearms laws should have their sentences doubled.

The most basic function of government is to protect law-abiding citizens in their homes and communities. Without such safeguards in place, civilized society will falter, causing ordinary people to become prisoners in their own homes, and forcing them to protect themselves against criminals.

Today, more communities are living in fear of violent crime. While the U.S. hasn't reached the point of anarchy, criminals seem more willing than ever to risk prosecution. The reason is that, even if they are caught, they re unlikely to be punished severely. In short, despite what we were told in school, crime does pay.

Americans have been failed miserably by a 30-year social experiment in criminals justice which perceives criminals as victims of societal ills that allegedly drive them to commit heinous acts against other people. Since 1960, the number of violent crimes committed in the U.S. has increased by more than 500%, although the population has grown just 41%. According to the FBI, nearly 2,000,000 violent crimes occurred in 1991 alone. In 1960, that figure was less then 300,000.

In New York State, the surge in violent crime has propelled people to demand reinstatement of the death penalty. Yet, despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of voters and state legislators favor capital punishment, Gov. Mario Cuomo has vetoed every death penalty measure put before him.

Frustrated by Cuomo's insistence upon ignoring New York voters' appeals for tough action on violent crime, I introduced the Violence with Firearms Prevention Act of 1994 with the support of the entire New York Republican Congressional delegation. This measure would impose the death penalty on many criminals who kill with a firearm acquired in another state.

Under the proposal, those who transport firearms across state lines for unlawful purposes are subject to imprisonment for up to 20 years and may be fined. Penalties are more severe for subsequent convictions. In the event of a crime in which someone is injured, the prison term may be increased to 30 years. If a fatality results, the bill requires a life sentence or the death penalty, depending on the circumstances. Probationary or suspended sentences are prohibited, as is the imposition of concurrent sentences.

The proposed legislation, I believe, is bu one step Congress must take to restore the confidence of the American public to live and work safely. Others include passage o H.R. 2872, the Crime Control Act of 1993. This bill, introduced by House Republicans, is a comprehensive attempt at reversing decades of failed liberal crime policies. The measure would create a new, regional prison system to help states with the cost o detaining violent criminals. It would set mandatory minimum sentences for several violent crimes and includes a provision to impose the death penalty for the most violent criminals.

The first step in the campaign against hardened criminals is to build more prisons. Overcrowding has forced many states to release some violent criminals from jail after serving only about one-third of their sentences. The Crime Control Act would provide $3,000,000,000 in Federal matching funds to states to build a national system of regional prisons. The funding is contingent upon states enacting truth-in-sentencing and pre-trial detention laws, as well as mandatory minimum sentences for violent and repeat offenders.

Parole policies across the nation severely have reduced the deterrent effect of prison for criminals. A Federal study of release statistics in 36 states and the District of Columbia showed that violent criminals served an average of only two years and 11 months in prison, or 37% of their imposed sentence.

Parole often is "rewarded" to criminals for "good behavior" and can reduce a sentence by over one-third. Although parole can be helpful for some non-violent prisoners, it is a foolhardy practice to offer parole to violent offenders. A prison sentence for a violent crime is not intended merely as a rehabilitation service - it is punishment. Criminals who go to jail for atrocious acts and are allowed to go free after serving a small portion of their sentences are not going to be deterred from committing crimes in the future. The jail time, in those cases, is just a cost of doing business.

A truth-in-sentencing law would restrict the ability of parole boards and prison officials to release prisoners prematurely. Since 1987, the Federal criminal system requires prisoners to serve 85% of their sentence before they can be released. Encouraging every state to enact a truth-in-sentencing law sends criminals a loud and clear message: The days of serving only three years of a 10-year sentence are over.

Before more criminals can be incarcerated, they must be apprehended. Accordingly, more police are needed to stem the rising tide of crime. Many local governments are experimenting with community policing, which assigns street cops to neighborhoods and encourages them to become familiar with residents. This type of interaction fosters a much more cooperative attitude between police and the people they serve. H.R. 2872 would provide $2,000,000,000 in grants to state and local law enforcement, which could be used to help pay for more police officers.

Capital punishment

Changes also also be made in the judicial system to terminate the endless appeals by death row inmates that clog court dockets. Death penalty opponents tirelessly trumpet the notion that killing convicted violent criminals is not a deterrent to crime. Liberal policies that have given criminals unlimited rights of appeal of death sentences reinforce that impression. What is needed is a limit on death sentence appeals.

The Crime Control Act of 1994 would limit those appeals and impose court filing deadlines that stick. Prisoners still will be allowed to appeal death sentences, though multiple appeals on arcane, legal technicalities will be eliminated.

Obviously, capital punishment is not appropriate in many cases. That's why the legislation also includes several mandatory minimum jail sentences. Previously convicted felons would face a mandatory five years for possession of a firearm; 10 for a second firearms offense. Persons convicted of a violent crime or drug trafficking who also violate Federal firearms laws will have their sentences doubled. Most importantly, the bill contains a mandatory life sentence upon conviction of a third felony. This "three strikes and you're out" provision was conceived and written by House Republicans well before Pres. Clinton announced his support for it during his State of the Union speech in January, 1994.

Finally, H.R. 2872 contains other provisions that will streamline procedures to deport aliens convicted of violent crimes and provide for increased tracking of aliens on probation or parole. The measure also would impose stiff penalties for the interstate stalking of women.

Critics of the proposed legislation and of the Republican measure will accuse me and my colleagues of political grandstanding and fear-mongering on the crime issue. The reality is that the American people are afraid and angry. They are afraid that they or a family member will be a victim of violent crime and that, if caught, the criminal will be free to roam the streets after serving only a short prison term. It's a cliche to say that lawmakers have put the rights of the criminal above the victims and law-abiding citizens, but it's true.

Criminals threaten our lives, property, and sense of security. Legislation must be passed to punish criminals severely. We no longer can permit the lawless to rule the lawful.

COPYRIGHT 1994 Society for the Advancement of Education
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group