PUNISHING CRIMINALS: THE SYSTEM FAILS THE TRUTH TEST

Most Americans are brought up with a simple but functional understanding of the criminal justice system: you commit a crime, you're caught, you're convicted, you're punished. Though absent the nuances of human behavior and the complexities of judicial machinations, this formula is basically the way it should be. Perhaps that accounts for frustrations many in this nation feel as the debate over America's crime problem heats up. Has the system broken down when it comes to punishing those who break the law? In many cases, the frustration is justified, and lawmakers can not adequately address the crime problem without addressing the standards of punishment meted out to offenders.

As one case study of disillusionment in the system, there was a news account this week of the family of Curtis, Randy and Sherry Scheper, three Cape Girardeans murdered in August 1992. David Rhodes was one of those involved in the killings, admitting his guilt to the court. For this admission, Rhodes was given three life prison terms, ordered to run consecutively, plus another 20-year sentence to run concurrently. While some might argue that is still a meager price to pay for participating in the taking of three lives, the court sent a message that David Rhodes would never again be turned loose on society.

However, the Scheper family received notice that Rhodes would have his first parole hearing 11 years from now. What seemed a stiff punishment for a heinous crime turns to mush once the machinery is set in motion. And it gives society room to wonder whether they are safe from criminals.

Judges and prosecutors are likewise disheartened that the fruits of their labors (separating law-breaking people from law-abiding ones) so often turn out to be early releases for convicted or confessed criminals. Persons with first-time convictions for lower level felonies often serve just 15 percent of the sentence imposed by a state court. For upper level felonies, such as drug trafficking, sometimes parole is granted after 25 percent of the sentence is served.

Cape Girardeau County Prosecuting Attorney Morley Swingle says, "Juries are sentencing people in ignorance, thinking that if they give a guy 10 years he's going to spend that time in jail. That's not the way it goes." Mr. Swingle wishes the Missouri General Assembly would pass a "truth-in-sentencing" law, one that would set a minimum amount of time a felon must serve before becoming eligible for parole. We agree with the prosecutor. To his credit, Gov. Mel Carnahan emphasized in his State of the State address a measure that would eliminate parole for chronic violent offenders and for armed criminal offenses; we hope these items make their way successfully through the legislative process.

In the federal judicial system, where criminals hate to find themselves, mandatory sentencing is the rule, and there is no possibility for parole. Federal authorities have also promoted a national anti-crime program called Project Triggerlock, which targets repeat violent offenders. Federal sentencing guidelines call for a person with three or more previous, unrelated violent offense convictions to be incarcerated for a minimum of 15 years, with no chance for early release.

About the Rhodes case, which was prosecuted in the state system, a corrections spokesman told the Southeast Missourian, "It's going to be a long time before someone with three consecutive life sentences is paroled. We can guarantee that." Though that is meant as a reassuring statement, the fact is they can't guarantee that. By the time 2005 rolls around, the political climate will have changed. Perhaps the public outcry at the time will be about crowded prisons. Maybe the fashion of the 21st century will be to give even the most violent offenders a new chance at freedom. It could be that the Rhodes case will fall between the cracks of thorough deliberation. In short, there is nothing to assure the Schepers or the public that a killer won't be turned loose a mere 13 years after he helped end three lives.

Crime, as most opinion surveys bear out, is on the minds of the American people. A good way to ease many of these minds is to ensure that persons caught and convicted of crimes are appropriately sentenced and have their sentences carried out to some reasonable duration. It is said that 70 percent of all crimes are committed by 6 percent of the criminal population. If that is so, keeping those offenders behind bars provides a good starting point for addressing the crime problem.