STATE HOUSE, BOSTON, FEB. 2, 2012……Proposals approved in the House and Senate that would eliminate parole for three-time violent offenders would likely affect just a handful of offenders per year, according to a key House lawmaker.

Rep. David Linsky (D-Natick), a former prosecutor and a member of the six-member panel trying to negotiate a consensus House-Senate habitual offender and sentencing reform bill, also ripped as inaccurate claims being circulated by the plan’s opponents that the legislation would lead to $125 million in new costs.

The cost estimate is “absolutely, 100 percent wrong,” he said during an appearance on WBUR-FM on Wednesday.

“There is a very small group of repeat violent offenders, probably no more than five or 10 a year that come before the courts in Massachusetts, who when they have committed their third violent crime and, having already been to state prison twice, we can’t afford as a society to give these people a chance at parole to go out and commit a fourth violent offense,” he said. “It’s a very small group.”

Linsky also maintained the legislation could lead to a net reduction in the state’s prison population if provisions survive enabling non-violent drug offenders to serve shorter sentences than are allowed under current laws.

“We’re going over this legislation with a fine-toothed comb right now,” Linsky said. “I think we’re getting very close on this … We’ll be reducing the prison population if we do this right.”

Rev. Eugene Rivers, during the same interview, said more public discussion of the list of dozens of three strikes trigger offenses is needed, as well as more evidence of its impact and costs.

Rivers said some lawmakers didn’t read the major criminal justice proposals before voting on them last year. “For those who know the State House, that’s not the first or last time that such occurrences have taken place,” he said.

“You may be entirely correct regarding the legislation as proposed. The argument that the smart people are making is, if that’s true, we should know and there has not been an adequate amount of research done to establish that you’re right,” Rivers said. “I have lived in a house that was shot into twice and burglarized six times. I’m to the right of Mr. Linsky on this law and order stuff. I’m not the Brattle Street high liberal who thinks that all criminals are political prisoners.

“My point,” he continued, “is that I think that we can probably achieve the same goals that you’ve articulated with judges exercising better discretion because the presumption in the removal of judicial discretion is I cannot attain the same result with judges exercising discretion.”

Critics of the legislation, including the ACLU, Families Against Mandatory Minimums, Ex-Prisoners and Prisoners Organizing for Community Advancement, the NAACP and the Massachusetts Black and Latino Legislative Caucus, distributed a newspaper this week that urged voters to “Say No to ‘3 Strikes’ Law in Massachusetts.” The 12-page publication featured commentary from lawmakers and activists rejecting the proposal.

Linsky said lawmakers were working toward a “balanced” bill sought by Gov. Deval Patrick that toughens penalties for repeat violent offenders and offers early parole or reduced mandatory minimum sentences for certain nonviolent criminal offenders.

Lawmakers are not looking to ensnare nonviolent offenders in the three strikes proposal, Linsky said.

“It’s not effective if the legislation is drafted too broadly, if it sweeps up non-violent offenders, but there is a very small group of offenders who for no other reason other than public safety, we need to keep them behind bars so they don’t kill again,” he said.

The legislative panel negotiating a consensus bill is scheduled to meet at the State House Friday morning. In addition to Linsky, the panel includes Senate Minority Leader Bruce Tarr, Sen. Steven Baddour (D-Methuen), Sen. Cynthia Creem (D-Newton), Rep. Eugene O’Flaherty (D-Chelsea) and Rep. Bradford Hill (R-Ipswich).

Gov. Deval Patrick said during his State of the Commonwealth address that he would support a crackdown on “the most hardened and destructive offenders” but not a policy that didn’t recognize the value of parole.