Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:19 am
Time: 3:19 am
Results for criminal justice policy (u.s.)
3 results foundAuthor: Lawrence, Alison Title: Principles of Effective State Sentencing and Corrections Policy A Report of the NCSL Sentencing and Corrections Work Group Summary: The NCSL Sentencing and Corrections Work Group project was developed under an NCSL partnership with the Public Safety Performance Project (PSPP) of the Pew Center on the States. The NCSL project responds to the challenges faced by states as they consider corrections and sentencing policies that both manage state spending and protect the public. The Pew PSPP was launched in 2006 to help states advance fiscally sound, data-driven policies and practices in sentencing and corrections. Pew’s work has included research, technical assistance, and funding and overseeing a variety of efforts both in states and nationally to support strategies that protect public safety, hold offenders accountable and control corrections costs. The NCSL Criminal Justice Program assembled the Sentencing and Corrections Work Group in 2010. The bipartisan, 18-member group includes officers of NCSL’s Law and Criminal Justice Committee and other legislators who are recognized as leaders on these issues. The group had a one-year work plan to discuss and identify overarching principles for effective state sentencing and corrections policy and to identify key issues and approaches that explain and illustrate the recommendations. The issues addressed by the NCSL work group reflect the important role of state legislatures in enacting policies that manage prison populations and costs, address offender and community needs, and contribute to the safe and fair administration of criminal justice. The discussions took place during a difficult, recessionary budget climate. A major interest of the work group was how to have an immediate effect on state public safety dollars while also ensuring that the public safety is protected into the future. Many concepts addressed in the Principles reflect recent advances in resource-sensitive policies that actually reduce risk and recidivism. Mindful that sentencing and corrections policies reach into various levels and branches of government, the Principles also reflect the value that lawmakers place on stakeholders throughout criminal justice systems in policy development and discussions. Apparent throughout the Principles is the importance of interbranch and intergovernmental collaboration, information exchange and evaluation in working toward effective sentencing and corrections policies. It is the intent of NCSL and this work group that the Principles and examples presented here will help guide and inform many aspects of state sentencing and corrections policy now and well into the future. Details: Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures, 2011. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 25, 2011 at: http://www.ncsl.org/documents/cj/pew/WGprinciplesreport.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncsl.org/documents/cj/pew/WGprinciplesreport.pdf Shelf Number: 123141 Keywords: Corrections AdministrationCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice AdministrationCriminal Justice Policy (U.S.)Sentencing |
Author: American Bar Association. Criminal Justice Section Title: Dialogue On Strategies to Save States Money, Reform Criminal Justice & Keep the Public Safe Summary: The American Bar Association has chosen to focus on five key issues where states can implement changes that will promote public safety, reduce recidivism, and save money. These five issues cover a range of criminal justice topics, but the goal is the same: to create an effective, low-cost system that improves our current justice system. Below is a brief description of each policy. PRE-TRIAL RELEASE REFORM According to the United States Department of Justice, over 500,000 men and women sit in jail awaiting trial. Two-thirds of these people are low bail risk, meaning they have been deemed by a magistrate to pose no significant risk to themselves or the community, as well as representing a low risk of flight. Often, these inmates will sit in jail for over a year before standing trial. While these non-violent offenders are in jail, taxpayers provide them with food, clothing, healthcare, and security – last year alone the United States spent $9 billion on services for those who could not afford bail. With the development of better tools, methods, and technologies to supervise non-violent offenders, states will be able to save money on pretrial detention and reduce risk to the community. Those who pose the lowest risk can be identified, released before trial, and then appropriately monitored and supported so they do not become a risk. Under these narrow circumstances, not only do taxpayers save money, but the community is not put in danger. DECRIMINALIZATION OF MINOR OFFENSES State budgets have very limited resources. Because of these limits, police and prosecutors simply cannot bring justice to all culprits. By declassifying certain minor crimes, law enforcement and attorneys can focus on more serious offenders. A large portion of low-level cases in this country go unsolved – declassification would not only direct more resources toward the investigation of serious crimes, but it would also provide states with a steady stream of income in from applicable civil fines. EFFECTIVE REENTRY PROGRAMS Recidivists account for a significant portion of the United States’ prison populations – it is estimated that over half of former inmates are re-arrested and incarcerated within three years following release from prison. A key component to combating these high numbers is to more effectively choose those inmates who are prepared for release and to create programs that provide those released with useful counseling and vocational training. Without guidance, former inmates are often left without necessary support and job training and quickly return to a life of crime. With the costs of incarceration skyrocketing, states simply cannot afford to repeatedly house the same prisoners. At a reduced cost, states can implement programs that provide former inmates with the tools necessary to become successful, productive members of the community. INCREASED USE OF PAROLE & PROBATION Unnecessary inctiaornce irsa a tremendous expense to the taxpayer, and can do more harm than good with regards to an offender’s rehabilitation. Lengthy periods of incarceration should therefore be reserved for offenders who commit the most serious offenses and pose the greatest danger to the community. In contrast, alternatives to incarceration should be provided for those offenders who pose minimal risk to the community and appear likely to benefit from rehabilitation efforts outside a correctional institution. Recognizing that few convicted persons require lengthy incarceration and many require none, the ABA’s Criminal Justice Standards on Sentencing call for sentencing schemes that allow administrative parole boards to decide when individuals incarcerated under inadequately determinate sentences should be released. The Standards also include probation options for the courts, substantial “good time” credit for individuals sentenced to total confinement, and the assertion that violations of parole and probation for non-violent offenders should not automatically result in incarceration. COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS PROGRAMS Community corrections consists of any number of sanctions served by an offender within the community where that offender either (a) committed an offense, or (b) currently resides. The objectives of community corrections include punishing an offender in the least restrictive setting consistent with public safety and the gravity of the crime; providing offenders with education, training, and treatment to enable an individual to become a fully functional member of the community upon release from supervision; and making offenders accountable to the community for criminal behavior. Community corrections envisions a wide-range of locally implemented, non-incarcerative sanctions such as probation, day-reporting centers, community service, home confinement with or without electronic monitoring, drug and alcohol treatment, means-based fines, and restitution to both the victim and the community. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2011. 170p. Source: Interent Resource: Accessed November 1, 2011 at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/criminal_justice/dialogpacket.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/events/criminal_justice/dialogpacket.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 123205 Keywords: BailCommunity CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice Policy (U.S.)Criminal Justice ReformDecriminalizationParolePretrial ReleasePrisoner ReentryProbation |
Author: Fortier, Nicole Title: Success-Oriented Funding: Reforming Federal Criminal Justice Grants Summary: A new policy proposal from the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law suggests the president make broad reforms to federal grants across the country that fund state and local law enforcement. Specifically, the president should use his executive authority to recast all federal grants for criminal justice in a "Success-Oriented Funding" model, in which the flow of dollars is linked to the achievement of clear goals. Grant programs run by the federal government have a powerful role in shaping the behavior of law enforcement nationwide. "Success-Oriented Funding" would encourage practices that reduce crime and violence without recourse to unnecessary force, whether through police behavior or undue focus on arrests and incarceration. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice; New York University School of Law, 2014. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2014 at: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/SuccessOrientedFunding_ReformingFederalCriminalJusticeGrants.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/SuccessOrientedFunding_ReformingFederalCriminalJusticeGrants.pdf Shelf Number: 133624 Keywords: Criminal Justice Policy (U.S.)Federal GrantsLaw Enforcement ProgramsPolice EffectivenessPolicing |