Pa. panel hears about parole and sentencing

Determinate vs. indeterminate sentencing isn't a topic that comes up in everyday conversation - until a convict's jail term or release boils over into a public controversy.

That's what happened in January, when former University of Pennsylvania professor Rafael Robb's near-parole after he served a minimum amount of his five-to-10-year prison term for killing his wife, Ellen Gregory Robb, unleashed strong criticism.

The state's sentencing system was discussed in a calmer fashion Thursday during a Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on possible changes. The hearing was held at the Philadelphia Bar Association.

"We'll be looking at some changes," said Republican Sen. Stewart J. Greenleaf, the committee chairman, who represents parts of Bucks and Montgomery Counties. "Whether we have support for determinate sentencing, I'm not so sure. We'll have to look."

A determinate sentence, sometimes called a flat sentence, carries a specific jail term - say 10 years - depending on the crime. There is no parole.

Pennsylvania uses indeterminate sentences, which provide a minimum and maximum range. The system includes a mandatory minimum term for some crimes. The state Board of Probation and Parole determines when to release an inmate who has served at least the minimum sentence.

Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Benjamin Lerner testified that the system lacks transparency and truth in sentencing. He said he is often asked at sentencings how long a defendant will serve. It is one question "I can't answer," he said.

The sentencing judge, having heard all sides of a case, is in a better position than the parole board to determine sentence length, he said.

The secrecy of the parole board process, Lerner said, also discourages participation by all parties and reaching the fairest result.

Michael C. Potteiger, chairman of the Board of Probation and Parole, said he had worked closely with legislators and the state's victim advocate to give victims and their families a direct voice in the parole process. Allowing the board to investigate and make a decision is better for public safety, he said.

"Discretionary parole individualizes the release decision based on each offender's progress, reduced risk, and reentry preparation," he said.

Others cited different factors when it comes to sentencing.

Andy Hoover, legislative director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, testified that mandatory minimums, seen as a reaction to crime spikes, create a problem no matter which sentencing system is used by keeping some convicts unnecessarily long in jail.

In the Robb case, the parole board reversed its decision, keeping him behind bars.

Since that controversy erupted, a bill has been introduced in Harrisburg that would give victims and their families the legal right to make their feelings known directly to parole board members before decisions are made.

Last year, the legislature approved other sentencing and corrections system changes, and some senators said they wanted to see the results of those efforts before doing anything more dramatic.