The state Board of Probation and Parole should be disbanded because it is forcing too many convicts to serve their maximum sentences rather than granting parole, and that's potentially dangerous, former state attorney general Ernie Preate said recently.
Preate told a state House panel that the number of inmates forced to serve their maximum sentence has more than tripled since 1993.
'Without parole for good behavior, there is no incentive for good behavior,' said Preate, who served time in prison on corruption charges. 'Why is that important for the safety of citizens? Because these max-outs are the deceived ones, the embittered ones, and the ones thought too dangerous to be paroled.  And they go from the hole right to the street where you and I walk.”
Preate said he favors abolishing the board in favor of a system of flat sentences with possible time off for good behavior.
Rep. Frank Dermody, D-Oakmont, a former prosecutor, said he was shocked when statistics were presented to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Probation and Parole.
'I didn't know the numbers,' he said. 'It is a concern. Some of those guys feel so screwed by the parole board that they don't even try to get out and go right from prison to the streets, and some of these guys are nasty.'
Parole Board statistics show that 14 percent of denials were for 'negative interest' on the part of inmates, meaning they didn't want to be released on parole and preferred to serve their maximum sentences.
The granting of parole requests in Pennsylvania declined dramatically as politicians got 'tough on crime' in the 1980s and 1990s.
Requests were denied 26 percent of the time in 1984, compared with 52 percent last year. As a result, average incarceration time more than doubled, from 26 months per inmate in 1984 to 54 months in 1999.
Inmates are sentenced by judges to a range, such as 10 to 20 years. A prisoner must serve the minimum sentence to be eligible for parole. Once the minimum is served, they can generally apply annually for parole.
The chairman of the state board, William Ward, agreed yesterday that some sort of supervised release is preferred when an inmate is released from prison.  But he said parole is an earned privilege, not a right.
If the nine-member board believes an inmate is a danger or hasn't earned the right to be paroled, he won't be, Ward said.
Ward added that the parole board's denial rate is not any higher than in other states of comparable size.
'We are a citizen-oriented committee, and we are accountable,' he said.
Preate said board members are fearful of being labeled soft on criminals or releasing someone who may be dangerous, regardless if they earned parole, he said.
Inmates and their families are often baffled when parole is denied because often there is no explanation for the ruling and it seems to be 'a whim' of the board, testified Rabbi Moishe Vogel, director of the Pittsburgh-based Aleph Institute, a prison advocacy organization that specializes in the concerns of Jewish inmates.
'When someone is sentenced, a judge has guidelines. There should be guidelines for the board,' he said.
Preate said a system of flat sentencing, with possible time off for good behavior, would provide a better incentive for prisoners to behave than a 50-50 chance of parole.
Inmates should at least be allowed to have an attorney present at parole board hearings, if for no other reason than to explain why parole was denied, said Larry Frankel, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania.
But Frankel said he doesn't expect any changes in the near future.
'I think we're laying the groundwork here,' he said. 'You have to talk about these things for years.'