Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:43 pm
Time: 8:43 pm
Results for determinate sentencing
3 results foundAuthor: Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission Title: 20 Years in Sentencing: A Look at Washington State Adult Felony Sentencing Fiscal Years 1989 to 2008 Summary: In 1981, the Washington State Legislature enacted the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA), creating the Sentencing Guidelines Commission (SGC). The SGC met to develop a structured sentencing system designed to further the purposes of the SRA, as stated in RCW 9.94A.010: The purpose of this chapter is to make the criminal justice system accountable to the public by developing a system for the sentencing of felony offenders which structures, but does not eliminate, discretionary decisions affecting sentences, and to: (1) Ensure that the punishment for a criminal offense is proportionate to the seriousness of the offense and the offender's criminal history; (2) Promote respect for the law by providing punishment which is just; (3) Be commensurate with the punishment imposed on others committing similar offenses; (4) Protect the public; (5) Offer the offender an opportunity to improve him or herself; (6) Make frugal use of the state's and local governments' resources; and (7) Reduce the risk of reoffending by offenders in the community. Upon adoption of the new determinate sentencing system, the SGC was assigned ongoing responsibilities in RCW 9.94A.850. “The legislature finds that the commission, having accomplished its original statutory directive to implement this chapter, and having expertise in sentencing practice and policies, shall: (a) Evaluate state sentencing policy, to include whether the sentencing ranges and standards are consistent with and further: (i) The purposes of this chapter as defined in RCW 9.94A.010; and (ii) The intent of the legislature to emphasize confinement for the violent offender and alternatives to confinement for the nonviolent offender.” This report is offered in response to these statutory directives. Throughout the more than two decades of the existence of the SRA in Washington, two features have remained constant; the Legislature has retained its “plenary power” to set sentencing policy and, with the single exception of the “Determinate Plus” sentences for serious sex offenders, it has maintained the original structure of the SRA to implement the changes in sentencing policy it determined were necessary. However, a number of adjustments to sentencing have been adopted by the Legislature. These policy changes, along with population increases and citizen initiatives, have impacted the number and length of felony sentences. Like other states, Washington has seen an explosion in corrections costs in the last twenty years. On the one hand, Washington is spending far less than most other states. On the other hand, the number of prison sentences has increased at a rate four times that of the adult population in Washington. This report examines trends in jail and prison sentence numbers for adult felony convictions, lengths of prison and jail sentences and factors that contribute to change in sentence characteristics. It is a comprehensive review of what has or has not changed in the realm of criminal felony sentencing in this state. It is intended to be useful to county and state policymakers, bearing in mind that the majority of felony sentences are served in county jails. This analysis provides the foundation for a review of sentencing in light of the expressed intent of the SRA. Adult felony sentence data maintained by the SGC were used to develop this report and include a twenty‐year time period from FY1989 to FY2008. The numbers of sentences referenced in this report are as of May 2009. These are subject to change as missing sentencing data becomes available. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission, 2010. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 9, 2011 at: http://www.sgc.wa.gov/Publications/Research/TwentyYearsInSentencing_WASentenceTrends.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.sgc.wa.gov/Publications/Research/TwentyYearsInSentencing_WASentenceTrends.pdf Shelf Number: 121677 Keywords: Determinate SentencingFelony OffendersPunishmentSentencing (Washington State)Sentencing Guidelines |
Author: Galik, Lauren Title: Smart on Sentencing, Smart on Crime: An Argument for Reforming Louisiana's Determinate Sentencing Laws Summary: Over the past several decades, Louisiana legislators have passed a number of determinate sentencing laws aimed at reducing crime and incapacitating certain types of offenders. Because these laws have been disproportionately applied to nonviolent crimes, nonviolent offenders now account for the majority of inmates and admissions to prison in the state. This has produced a number of unfortunate consequences, such as an increase in the state's prison population from 21,007 in 1992 to 39,709 in 2011 and a $315 million increase in correction expenditures during the same time period, from $442.3 million (in 2011 dollars) in 1992 to $757.4 million in 2011. Meanwhile, there is little evidence that the laws have done anything to reduce Louisiana's violent crime rate, which remains considerably above both the national average and the rates in its neighboring states. Today, Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate in the country, with 868 of every 100,000 of its citizens in prison. Louisiana's citizens could benefit considerably from changes to the way in which convicted criminals are sentenced. As things stand, nonviolent offenders who pose little or no threat to society are routinely sentenced to long terms in prison with no opportunity for parole, probation or suspension of sentence. In most cases, this is a direct result of the state's determinate sentencing laws. These prisoners consume disproportionate amounts of Louisiana's scarce correctional resources, which could be better utilized to ensure that violent criminals are more effectively kept behind bars. Among the more serious problems with Louisiana's determinate sentencing laws are: - A large number of crimes that carry mandatory minimum prison sentences in Louisiana are drug-related and nonviolent in nature. Indeed, numerous violent crimes, such as negligent homicide, manslaughter, aggravated assault with a firearm, aggravated battery, simple rape and simple kidnapping carry no mandatory minimum sentences at all. - Mandatory minimum sentences eliminate judicial discretion over sentencing by prohibiting judges from taking into account factors specific to the crime or offender when determining the sentence. - Mandatory minimum sentences create arbitrary outcomes by drawing essentially trivial lines between degrees of criminal activity that can result in dramatic differences in punishment. This happens most commonly with sentences for drug crimes, where different weights or quantities of drugs carry varying degrees of punishment. For example, possession of 199.9 grams of cocaine carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years of hard labor in prison and a $50,000 fine. However, possession of 200 grams of cocaine carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years of hard labor in prison and a $100,000 fine-double the punishment for a negligible 0.1 gram more of cocaine. Other states have gone further. In Maine, legislators passed safety valve provisions that allow judges to depart below mandatory minimum sentences in certain instances. In Rhode Island, legislators repealed mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. These reforms have allowed Maine and Rhode Island to save prison space and resources for criminals who pose a real threat to society, while reducing corrections costs. Louisiana could benefit from similar changes to sentencing policy. Details: Los Angeles: Reason Foundation, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Study 425: Accessed April 8, 2015 at: http://reason.org/files/louisiana_sentencing_reform.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://reason.org/files/louisiana_sentencing_reform.pdf Shelf Number: 135182 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeDeterminate SentencingImprisonment, Economic Aspects ofPunishmentSentencing (Louisiana)Sentencing Reform |
Author: Howard, Flora Fitzalan Title: Understanding the Process and Experience of Recall to Prison Summary: This research was conducted to develop an evidence-based and systematic approach for the management of determinate sentenced prisoners on standard recall. The number of recalled prisoners in custody has steadily increased over time, with the largest proportion at any one time being on 'standard' recall, and many remaining in custody until the end of their sentences. Thus, the focus was on standard recalled prisoners and the re-release process. The work had four strands: a Risk, Need and Responsivity profile of recalled prisoners; two qualitative investigations of the experience of recall for men and for women; and a survey of Offender Managers (OMs) and recalled prisoners. The aim was to identify the obstacles and opportunities in the current re-release process, and identify ways for recall to become more rehabilitative. Key findings - Recalled prisoners had high levels of risk and need, and complex responsivity issues. Many of them would be suitable for, and might benefit from, cognitive skills and violence interventions to enable them to address their needs and progress to re-release. - Prisoners and OMs had different perceptions of how much prisoners understood recall, how much they communicated with each other, and the impact of recall on their relationship. - In interviews and surveys, recalled prisoners described their recall as unjust, finding it hard to trust the process or those involved. They could feel stranded, confused about what was expected of them, or felt they were not supported, communicated with or included enough in decisions. - Interview and survey findings showed that prisoners found recall distressing and associated with loss. They found recall to be solely punitive, not rehabilitative. Prisoners' meaningful engagement and relationships with OMs could be negatively affected when recalled. - Recalled prisoners continued to show motivation to change, determination to have a different future, and some wanted more opportunities to achieve this. - For women, the period immediately before and after their initial release emerged as the time of particular vulnerability. - OMs appeared to generally have good understanding and confidence in using the recall and re-release processes. They worked to keep in touch with the prisoners they managed. - OMs experienced barriers to progressing cases. These included external factors (e.g. a lack of access to interventions and accommodation) and internal barriers (e.g. poor prisoner motivation to engage with their OM following recall). Delays in helping prisoners progress to re-release were reportedly due to difficulties establishing frequent contact, heavy workloads and insufficient time. - If recall is to become more rehabilitative, engage prisoners and help them achieve earlier re-release, the findings of this research emphasise the need to refine recall and re-release processes to include better communication and relationships between those involved. - Small sample sizes, particularly of OMs surveyed, may reduce the generalisability of the research findings. Details: United Kingdom: HM Prison and Probation Service, 2018. 13p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 8, 2018 at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/723265/Understanding_the_process_and_experience_of_recall_to_prison.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/723265/Understanding_the_process_and_experience_of_recall_to_prison.pdf Shelf Number: 151444 Keywords: Determinate SentencingIncarcerationPrisonPrisonersRecallRehabilitation |