Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:58 am
Time: 1:58 am
Results for felony offenders
33 results foundAuthor: Rosenmerkel, Sean Title: Felony Sentences in State Courts, 2006 - Statistical Tables Summary: This report presents findings from the 2006 National Judicial Reporting Program (NJRP), which compiles detailed information on the sentences that felons receive in state courts nationwide and on characteristics of the felons. The survey excludes federal courts and state or local courts that do not adjudicate adult felony cases. The tables in this publication provide data on the number of felony offenders in state courts, sentences received, demographic characteristics of convicted felons, and types of convictions. The report also covers comparisons to felony sentences in federal courts, using data from the Federal Justice Statistics Program (FJSP). The 2006 NJRP was based on a sample of state courts in 300 counties selected to be nationally representative. The survey included only offenses that state penal codes defined as felonies. Felonies are widely defined as crimes with the potential of being punished by more than 1 year in prison. NJRP surveys have been conducted every 2 years since 1986. Highlights include the following: In 2006 an estimated 69% of all persons convicted of a felony in state courts were sentenced to a period of confinement–41% to state prison and 28% to local jails. State prison sentences averaged 4 years and 11 months in 2006. Men (83%) accounted for a larger percentage of persons convicted of a felony, compared to their percentage (49%) of the adult population. Most (94%) felony offenders sentenced in 2006 pleaded guilty. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009. 34p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 21, 2010 at: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fssc06st.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/fssc06st.pdf Shelf Number: 119577 Keywords: Felony OffendersPunishmentSentencing StatisticsState Courts |
Author: Barnoski, Robert Title: Washington's Offender Accountability Act: Department of Corrections' Static Risk Instrument Summary: The 1999 Offender Accountability Act (OAA) affects how the Washington State Department of Corrections (DOC) supervises convicted felony offenders in the community. The Washington State Institute for Public Policy (Institute) was directed by the Legislature to evaluate the OAA. The OAA requires DOC to supervise felony offenders according to their risk for future offending. Risk for future offending is estimated using instruments that classify offenders into groups with similar characteristics. Criminal behavior is difficult to predict; even the most accurate instruments, like this one, cannot predict with absolute certainty who will subsequently reoffend. In our 2003 report, the Institute evaluated the validity of DOC’s risk assessment tool and found that the tool could be strengthened by including more information about an offender’s prior record of convictions. Subsequently, DOC asked the Institute to develop a new “static risk” instrument based on offender demographics and criminal history because of the following advantages: Increased predictive accuracy; Prediction of three types of high risk offenders: drug, property, and violent; Increased objectivity; Decreased time to complete the assessment; and Accurate recording of criminal history for use in other DOC reporting requirements. This report describes our evaluation of the validity of the static risk instrument developed for DOC. Details: Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 2007. 14p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2010 at: http://www.asca.net/documents/07-03-1201-WSIPPStaticRisk.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.asca.net/documents/07-03-1201-WSIPPStaticRisk.pdf Shelf Number: 114887 Keywords: Classification of OffendersFelony OffendersRecidivismRisk Assessment |
Author: Diroll, David J. Title: Monitoring Sentencing Reform: Survey of Judges, Prosecutors, & Defense Attorneys and Code Simplification Summary: In the dozen years since the first package of Sentencing Commission proposals were adopted (Senate Bill 2 of the 121st G.A., dealing with adult felons, effective 7.1.96), the General Assembly has debated numerous bills relating to criminal sentencing. Several major bills came from Sentencing Commission proposals, including changes in juvenile dispositions in 2000, traffic law in 2004, misdemeanor sentencing in 2004, and asset forfeitures in 2007. These bills affected several hundred sections of the Revised Code. Of course, scores of other bills touched on criminal penalties during the same period. In the felony area, major changes were enacted regarding predatory sexual offenses and impaired drivers. Every biennium, the Commission reports on the impact of the sentencing reforms that grew out of Commission recommendations. This report focuses on felony sentencing. The Commission surveyed judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys to get a feel for how well the felony sentencing statutes are working. This report recaps the S.B. 2 approach to felony sentencing, notes certain key changes since 1996, and presents practitioners’ opinions on the statutes. Details: Columbus: Ohio Criminal Sentencing Commission, 2009. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 13, 2010 at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Boards/Sentencing/resources/Publications/MonitoringRpt2009.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/Boards/Sentencing/resources/Publications/MonitoringRpt2009.pdf Shelf Number: 120486 Keywords: Felony OffendersSentencing (Ohio) |
Author: Doyle, Charles Title: Armed Career Criminal Act (18 U.S.C. 924(e)): An Overview Summary: The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e), requires imposition of a minimum 15-year term of imprisonment for recidivists convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. 922(g). Section 924(e) applies only to those defendants who have three prior state or federal convictions for violent felonies or serious drug offenses. Violent felonies for purposes of section 924(e) are those that either (1) have an element of threat, attempt, or use of physical force against another or (2) that involve burglary, arson, or extortion, or some similar offense. Serious drug offenses are those punishable by imprisonment for 10 years or more. Constitutional challenges to the application of section 924(e) have been generally unsuccessful, regardless of whether they were based on arguments of cruel and unusual punishment, double jeopardy, due process, grand jury indictment or jury trial rights, the right to bear arms, or limits on Congress’s legislative authority. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2010. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2010 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41449.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41449.pdf Shelf Number: 120496 Keywords: Armed Career Criminal ActFelony OffendersFirearms and CrimeViolent Crime |
Author: New Mexico Sentencing Commission Title: Cost of Housing Arrestees Held on Felony Charges: A Profile of Six New Mexico Detention Centers Summary: This report provides a count of individuals held on felony charges in six detention facilities in New Mexico on June 30, 2003 and estimates the annual cost of housing four categories of felony arrestees throughout the state. The estimated annual cost of housing arrestees using actual facility cost in NM detention facilities is $25.4 million. The following is the cost estimate for each category: • Sentenced to prison and awaiting transport to a state facility is $2.4 million. • Probation and parole violators sentenced to county facility is almost $4.3 million. • Sentenced to detention facility is almost $6.6 million. • Unsentenced probation and parole violators is $12.1 million. The cost per day for New Mexico detention centers ranged from $21 to $147. The average cost per day for all New Mexico detention facilities was $56. The six detention facilities in the study comprised 60% of all arrestees held in New Mexico detention facilities on June 30, 2003. 68.9% of arrestees held in the six selected detention facilities were charged with at least one felony charge. Of the 2,536 arrestees with felony charges held in the six detention facilities on June 30, 2003: • 33.2% fit one of the felony categories for which we calculated costs. • 66.8% were unsentenced with new charges or warrants other than probation or parole violation. In the future it would be beneficial to further refine the felony categories used to calculate cost estimates to separate parole violators from probation violators and report the number of prisoners from the Department of Corrections housed in detention facilities for court dates. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2005. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2011 at: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/prison/ Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/prison/ Shelf Number: 121214 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCost-AnalysisDetention (New Mexico)Felony OffendersInmatesJails |
Author: Guerin, Paul Title: Length of Stay for Arrestees Held on Felony Charges: A Profile of Six New Mexico Detention Facilities Summary: The goal of this report was to better understand how long felony arrestees stay in detention centers and the corresponding cost. Specifically, the report looks at the length of stay of felony arrestees in six New Mexico detention facilities. Highlights of the study include the following: 68.9% of the arrestees held in local New Mexico detention facilities were charged with at least one felony. More than 50% of arrestees held in detention centers spent almost 7 1/2 months in jail (224 days). Unsentenced probation violators (546 arrestees) spent more than two months in jail from the time they were booked to the time they were sentenced. Median length of stay varied from a low of 38 days in Eddy County to a high of 96 days in Dona Ana County. Reducing the length of stay of probation violators will reduce jail crowding. Unsentenced arrestees on new charges spent a median of 167 days in jail from the time they were booked to the time the case was closed by the District Court. According to an NIJ study, courts can exercise considerable control over how quickly cases move through the court system without sacrificing justice. Slightly more than 18% (459) of all arrestees in the sample were sentenced to prison. Between the date these individuals were sentenced and the date they were transported to prison they spent a median of 19 days in jail. This ranged from 13 days in Dona Ana County to 34 days in Eddy County. These individuals accounted for 8,721 bed days. Reducing the length of stay by 50% would save almost 4,500 bed days. Detention center administrators do not control jail admissions or length of stay and so cannot directly affect jail populations. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2005. 4p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 1, 2011 at: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/prison/ Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/nmsc_reports/prison/ Shelf Number: 121215 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCost AnalysisDetention (New Mexico)Felony OffendersJails |
Author: 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: Brown-Dean, Khalilah L. Title: One Lens, Multiple Views: Felon Disenfranchisement Laws and American Political Inequality Summary: Felon disenfranchisement laws prohibit current, and in many states, former felony offenders from voting. Of particular interest to my research, 36% of the citizens permanently unable to vote are African Americans. It is important to note that state laws determine who is eligible to vote. States have the option of disenfranchising felons while in prison, while on parole, on probation, or for a lifetime. This dissertation combines traditional democratic theory with elements of the racial group competition literatures to form a lens for understanding the historical use and contemporary consequences of criminal disenfranchisement laws. Using a multi-method approach combining archival research, experiments, and cross-sectional analyses, the findings of this research contradict much of the existing literature's assertion that racial minorities have successfully overcome the institutional barriers to full participation. In essence, these findings affirm the extent to which criminal control policies have become a powerful means of promoting the politics of exclusion. Using an original state-level data set, I find that the level of minority diversity and region are the most significant determinants of the severity of states' disenfranchisement laws. In particular, I find that southern states and states with more sizeable Black and Hispanic voting-age populations tend to have more severe restrictions on felon voting. I find that elite discourse surrounding disenfranchisement has evolved from an explicit focus on race and racial discrimination to a more subtle priming of racial group considerations and stereotypes. Combining these findings with the experimental data, I find that public support for felon disenfranchisement is influenced by the frames elites use to discuss them. When disenfranchisement laws are presented as a threat to democratic vitality, citizens' support for them tends to be lower. However, when disenfranchisement is presented as a means of punishing those who have broken the public trust, support is higher. These findings confirm the importance of political elites for helping citizens make sense of complex political issues. Taken together, the research presented in this dissertation supports the view that the racial group competition lens illuminates multiple views regarding the limits of citizenship as well as contemporary barriers to political equality. Details: Columbus, OH: Ohio State University, Department of Political Science, 2003. 264p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed August 24, 2011 at: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi/BrownDean%20Khalilah%20L.pdf?osu1054744924 Year: 2003 Country: United States URL: http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi/BrownDean%20Khalilah%20L.pdf?osu1054744924 Shelf Number: 122480 Keywords: Felon DisenfranchisementFelony OffendersVoting Rights |
Author: Beliski, Matthew Title: State Criminal History Records Improvement: Arizona Felony Case Processing Summary: In 2009, the Arizona Statistical Analysis Center (AZSAC) of the Arizona Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC) received a grant award1 from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) through the Justice Research & Statistics Association (JRSA) to investigate, collect, and analyze data available throughout Arizona related to felony case processing. Per the original grant proposal and subsequent project meetings, each state grant recipient is expected to give special attention to the data readily available within each state’s criminal history record repository. Project analysts are also encouraged to utilize data from other sources in order to meet the project requirements. In order to better understand the felony case processing data supplied in this report, it is important to briefly review the structure of Arizona’s criminal history record repository. The Arizona Computerized Criminal History (ACCH) is the state repository for all arrest and disposition criminal history record information collected across all criminal justice state agencies. Housed at the Arizona Department of Public Safety (AZDPS), the ACCH repository is an electronic warehouse of criminal justice information for all felony, DUI, aggravated domestic violence, and sexual offenses, pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute §41-1750. Although these are the mandatory ACCH offenses, other offenses are voluntarily deposited in the ACCH repository as well. The ACCH is initially populated by information collected at the time of arrest. An arrest entry does not process without fingerprints being taken; thus, any citation arrest (i.e. cite and release for DUI, etc.) requires that the alleged offender submit to fingerprinting at a later date. Once the prosecutor or the court disposes a case, the data from the final disposition is linked to the arrest data already in the ACCH. If for any reason an arrest leading to fingerprinting has not taken place, the subsequent disposition data will not be entered into the repository, and AZDPS renders the disposition back to the disposition agency for follow-up with law enforcement. Originating disposition agencies also have the ability to amend their dispositions, and as a result, override the disposition data previously available through the original disposition. The felony case processing project is the latest installment in a number of AZSAC projects employing the use of ACCH data provided by the AZDPS. AZSAC staff received multiple ACCH extracts to assess the timeliness, completeness, and overall quality of criminal history records throughout the state. The AZSAC published several reports and fact sheets addressing the quality of state criminal history records, and staff continues to work directly with the Access Integrity Unit at the AZDPS to provide valuable records quality data and information to the records auditors. In the past, AZSAC staff requested additional data extracts to investigate sexual offender recidivism as well as to enhance existing data for the 2004 Arizona Homicide Study. In collaboration with researchers at Arizona State University, AZSAC staff merged data from the Arizona Department of Corrections with ACCH data from the AZDPS to conduct rearrest and reconviction recidivism analyses of sexual offenders released from the Arizona correctional system in 2001. A comprehensive sexual offender recidivism report was published in 2009 and is available on the ACJC web site. Staff at AZDPS recently provided the AZSAC with available criminal history record data for all offenders and victims of homicide in 2004. AZSAC staff continued to work with the data for a later supplement to the report, titled “Homicide in Arizona, 2004.” Finally, Arizona Revised Statute §41-2406 mandates that the ACJC use criminal history record data to examine the reporting of sexual assault throughout Arizona. AZSAC staff established a data sharing agreement with the AZDPS to provide AZSAC with the appropriate annual extract for this reporting requirement. Staff at the ACJC has since institutionalized this report on an annual basis, and continuing improvements to the report add to the report’s value to stakeholders. As a result of the annual data agreement with the AZDPS, the AZSAC requested a full “snapshot” of ACCH arrest and disposition data for the previous 10 years back in January 2009. Because of the relative proximity of the data request to the BJS/JRSA request for proposals, AZSAC staff proceeded with a proposal to investigate and analyze ACCH data as it pertains to felony case processing from the initial arrest through the sentencing/appeals process. More definitively, the felony case processing project assists the AZSAC in joining with the BJS and the JRSA to accomplish the following initiatives: 1) Exploring the feasibility of utilizing statistical analysis centers to provide criminal history data and analyses to produce national studies of felony case processing; 2) Analyze felony case processing in Arizona; and 3) Continue our identification and reporting of critical data quality issues in Arizona’s criminal history record repository. With these goals in mind, the AZSAC will provide equal emphasis on the methodology of the felony case processing project as on the data results within the report. In addition to the following project report, the BJS and the JRSA are requesting the dataset containing all individuals indicted for a felony in 2006 as a project deliverable. After the initial project meeting in Washington, D.C., both BJS and JRSA project officials provided the state grantees with a codebook of variables to be included in the project dataset. The codebook of variables is modeled after the data elements captured through the State Court Processing Statistics (SCPS) program and the National Judicial Reporting Program (NJRP). After discussions in July among project officials and grantees regarding the lack of available indictment data, all parties agreed that the dataset should consist of all felony offenders (both arrested for a felony and/or later accused of a felony offense) who were subsequently arrested in 2006. Details: Phoenix: Arizona Criminal Justice Commission, Statistical Analysis Center Report, 2010. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 20, 2011 at: http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/2010_Felony_Processing_Report.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.azcjc.gov/ACJC.Web/Pubs/Home/2010_Felony_Processing_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 122793 Keywords: Case ManagementCase Processing (Arizona)Criminal History RecordsFelony CourtsFelony Offenders |
Author: Huenke, Charles J., Jr. Title: Delaware Felony Case Processing An Analysis of 2006 Adult Arrests Summary: When one looks at criminal justice planning documents that intend to inform us about the results of laws and polices we often see the funnel flowchart showing the steps felony arrestees follow as their cases progress through the criminal justice system. Correctly, this chart shows that many cases fall by the wayside not resulting in a felony conviction or a prison term. Interestingly this chart has not changed since the early 1970’s when it was originally developed for the old U.S. Department of Justice Law Enforcement Administration Assistance (LEAA) agency (now the DOJ Office of Programs). The reason the chart has not changed is that no one could credibly put numbers on the page. The false assumption that someone could push a computer button and produce these results cast light on our then sadly incomplete, disconnected and non-standardized criminal justice information systems. Over the years, counties, states and the federal government have poured billions of dollars into systematic efforts to improve our criminal justice information systems to ensure identification (fingerprints), develop and maintain law files (standardization of legal terms), fleshing out sentencing orders (measure of punishment and surveillance), and linking each offender’s arrest with the end result including release from prison (system integration). Delaware participated in the 2010 effort hosted by the U.S. Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and administered by the Justice Research and Statistics Association to test the hypothesis that after all these criminal justice system improvements we could “push the button” for results. The answer is we and the four other participating states got viable results; the sticky point is the button got stuck. We were able to produce statewide numbers for the first time for all 2006 felony arrestees in the Delaware and track them successfully to either falling out of the felony part of the criminal justice system or being sentenced – sometimes to prison. Historically this is a remarkable feat. While the data exist that allows this analysis, which is good news, it still takes a very significant amount of work of knowledgeable researchers to put it together. We now have viable results tracking felons though the criminal justice system. Following a brief discussion of some of the issues with the criminal justice databases, the second part of this study provides step by step details for the flow of felons through the criminal justice system. On the following page a brief summary of these results are presented. For instance, 43 percent of the arrested felons are convicted of a felony, while overall 69 percent of the felony arrestees are convicted of either a felony or a misdemeanor. For all of these convictions, only 11 percent are sentenced to prison for terms of one year or more; however 47 percent are sentenced to some type of incarceration (including prison, jail or time served). The severity of the crime makes a difference. For those felons being arrested for violent crimes and convicted, 40 percent are sentenced to prison, and when all types of incarceration are considered the rate is 80 percent. Interestingly, 50 percent of the felony arrestees have two or more prior felony arrests in their criminal histories. Details: Dover, DE: Delaware Statistical Analysis Center, 2011. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 4, 2011 at: http://sac.omb.delaware.gov/publications/documents/DelawareFelony2006Jan142011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://sac.omb.delaware.gov/publications/documents/DelawareFelony2006Jan142011.pdf Shelf Number: 122976 Keywords: Case ProcessingFelony ArrestsFelony OffendersSentencing (Delaware) |
Author: Wood, Erika Title: De Facto Disenfranchisement Summary: Voting is both a fundamental right and a civic duty. However there remains a significant blanket barrier to the franchise: 5.3 million American citizens are not allowed to vote because of criminal convictions. As many as four million of these people live, work, and raise families in our communities, but because of convictions in their past they are still denied the right to vote. State laws vary widely on when voting rights are restored. Maine and Vermont do not deny the franchise based on a criminal conviction; even prisoners may vote there. Kentucky and Virginia are the last two states to continue to permanently disenfranchise all people with felony convictions unless they receive individual, discretionary clemency from the governor. The remaining 46 states fall somewhere in between, with the varied state laws forming a patchwork across the country. Some states restore voting rights upon release from prison, others upon completion of probation and parole, and others impose waiting periods or other contingencies and categories before restoring voting rights. This disenfranchisement by law of millions of American citizens is only half the story. Across the country there is persistent confusion among election officials about their state’s felony disenfranchisement policies. Election officials receive little or no training on these laws, and there is little or no coordination or communication between election offices and the criminal justice system. These factors, coupled with complex laws and complicated registration procedures, result in the mass dissemination of inaccurate and misleading information, which in turn leads to the de facto disenfranchisement of untold hundreds of thousands of eligible would-be voters throughout the country. De facto disenfranchisement has devastating long-term effects in communities across the country. Once a single local election official misinforms a citizen that he is not eligible to vote because of a past conviction, it is unlikely that citizen will ever follow up or make a second inquiry. Without further public education or outreach, the citizen will mistakenly believe that he is ineligible to vote for years, decades, or maybe the rest of his life. And that same citizen may pass along that same inaccurate information to his peers, family members and neighbors, creating a lasting ripple of de facto disenfranchisement across his community. Between 2003 and 2008, the ACLU and the Brennan Center for Justice, together with our state partners, conducted interviews with election officials in 15 states to determine the level of knowledge of their state’s felony disenfranchisement law. This report summarizes the results of telephone interviews conducted in Arizona, Colorado, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Washington. Prior to conducting interviews in each state, the ACLU and the Brennan Center performed a thorough legal analysis of the state’s felony disenfranchisement law. A separate set of questions was designed for each state based on the state law and the specific information sought in the state. The same questions were asked of each election official in the state and their answers were carefully documented along with the official’s name and the date and time of the interview. Where feasible, we interviewed a representative of every local election office in each state. In states where a large number of localities made this difficult, a representative sample was identified. The interviews revealed an alarming national trend of de facto disenfranchisement: Election officials do not understand the basic voter eligibility rules governing people with criminal convictions; Election officials do not understand the basic registration procedures for people with criminal convictions; Interviewers experienced various problems communicating with election officials, including repeated unanswered telephone calls and bureaucratic runaround. Details: American Civil Liberties Union, 2008. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 29, 2012 at http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/racialjustice/defactodisenfranchisement_report.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.aclu.org/pdfs/racialjustice/defactodisenfranchisement_report.pdf Shelf Number: 124332 Keywords: Felon DisenfranchisementFelony OffendersVoting Rights |
Author: Bronstein, Berjamin Title: Felony Disenfranchisement: An Annotated Bibliography Summary: While the right to vote is a cornerstone of American democracy, a substantial and growing population of citizens is restricted from participation in the electoral process. Current estimates suggest that about five million Americans are ineligible to vote as a result of having a felony conviction. Depending on the state in which they have been convicted, these people may be disenfranchised while incarcerated, on probation or parole, or even after completing a sentence. As a result of the dramatic expansion of the criminal justice system in recent decades, the number of people with convictions, and hence disenfranchised, is at a record high. Since the first modern-day estimates of the disenfranchised population were developed in the late 1990s, there has been a surge of policy reform activity around the country. Two dozen states have enacted various policy and practice reforms designed to either scale back the number of persons disenfranchised or remove some of the barriers to rights restoration. Along with this movement has come a new generation of scholarship on the issue of felony disenfranchisement. A wealth of studies and analyses have been produced in recent years that examine disenfranchisement from a variety of perspectives – law, social science, history, and journalism. Overall, these writings provide new estimates of the statistical impact of disenfranchisement, assess legal and moral perspectives on the policy, and place the issue in a comparative international context. This bibliography provides an overview of the scholarship on felony disenfranchisement over the past two decades. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2012. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 30, 2012 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/vr_Felony_Disenfranchisement_Annotated_Bibliography.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/vr_Felony_Disenfranchisement_Annotated_Bibliography.pdf Shelf Number: 124768 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal DisenfranchisementFelony DisenfranchisementFelony OffendersVoting Rights |
Author: Freeman, Linda Title: Length of Stay in Detention Facilities: A Profile of Seven New Mexico Counties Summary: In 2004, the New Mexico Association of Counties (NMAC) contracted with the New Mexico Sentencing Commission (NMSC) to conduct a study to estimate the cost of housing arrestees charged with felonies in New Mexico detention facilities. Fiscal impact was the primary focus of the study; however, a second report Length of Stay for Arrestees Held on Felony Charges: A Profile of Six New Mexico Detention Facilities was published that analyzed the amount of time arrestees charged with felonies spent in jail. In subsequent years, the cost estimate has been updated annually. The length of stay study had not been updated since 2005. In June 2011, NMAC contracted with NMSC to update the length of stay study. Rather than just look at arrestees with felony charges, the update includes arrestees charged with misdemeanor charges as well as collection of other data elements. Much of the conclusions from the 2005 report are still relevant. Jail population is a consequence of two factors: the number of jail admissions and the length of stay. Robert Cushman observes in a 2002 NIJ publication, Preventing Jail Crowding: A Practical Guide, that often times jail management is reactive rather than proactive. Many communities leave the jail population to seek its own level. Jail managers do not control how people get in or out so little is done to analyze the jail composition. However, an examination of the type and duration of the length of stay and the sources of admission can give jail managers the information to formulate policy and improve public protection. Variations exist in the length of stay by county. Efforts need to continue to be made to: Analyze the detention process in each county to determine efficiencies and positive externalities; Determine how county detention centers, courts, district attorneys, public defenders, and private attorneys can work together to reduce unsentenced length of stay; Work with county detention centers and sheriffs to reduce the delay in transferring arrestees to prison after the judgment and sentence is signed, and; Consider ways to hear probation revocations more quickly to reduce unsentenced length of stay for probation violators. Details: Albuquerque, NM: New Mexico Sentencing Commission, 2012. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 3, 2012 at http://nmsc.unm.edu/index.php/download_file/-/view/460/ Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://nmsc.unm.edu/index.php/download_file/-/view/460/ Shelf Number: 126858 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCost AnalysisDetention (New Mexico)Felony OffendersJails |
Author: Jarjoura, Roger Title: Review of IDOC Admission Cohort of D Felony and Select C Felony Offenders Summary: In 2011, the Indiana State Legislature's Criminal Code Evaluation Commission formed a committee, since called the Data Analysis Work Group (DAWG). One goal of this group was to examine why certain low-level and nonviolent felony offenders spend very short periods of incarceration (often less than 365 days) in IDOC. In September 2011, representatives of the Indiana University Public Policy Institute's Center for Criminal Justice Research (CCJR) met with DAWG committee members to discuss the possibility of collecting data to understand the issues that lead to short periods of incarceration in IDOC for low-level and nonviolent felony offenders. CCJR was contracted to conduct a study to better understand the processes that ultimately result in offenders sentenced to IDOC where the most serious conviction offense is a D felony or selected nonviolent C felonies. CCJR's goal for the study was to provide rich case-level data on all D felony cases and the eligible nonviolent C felonies that were admitted to the IDOC for a three-month period in 2011 to inform policy discussions surrounding efforts to change incarceration practices in the state of Indiana. This report summarizes findings of this study. Details: Indianapolis: Indiana University, Center for Criminal Justice Research, 2012. 78p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 5, 2013 at: https://archives.iupui.edu/handle/2450/6766 Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://archives.iupui.edu/handle/2450/6766 Shelf Number: 129539 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice SystemsFelony OffendersSentencing |
Author: Mauer, Marc Title: A Lifetime of Punishment: The Impact of the Felony Drug Ban on Welfare Benefits Summary: In his first State of the Union address, President Bill Clinton promised to "end welfare as we know it." Nearly four years later, on August 22, 1996, President Clinton signed legislation to do exactly that: the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). PRWORA's reforms were expansive and controversial for several reasons, including its implementation of a revised cash assistance program- Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)- which limited the length of time eligible families could receive benefits and established work requirements for recipients. In addition, PRWORA made substantial changes to the operation of the federal food stamp program, which has since been renamed the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Perhaps because of the general debate surrounding PRWORA's changes to cash assistance and food stamp programs, one significant provision of the law initially received little attention: along with other federal legislation related to the "war on drugs," PRWORA imposed a denial of federal benefits to people convicted in state or federal courts of felony drug offenses. The ban is imposed for no other offenses but drug crimes. Its provisions that subject individuals who are otherwise eligible for receipt of SNAP or TANF benefits to a lifetime disqualification applies to all states unless they act to opt out of the ban. Despite the magnitude of this change, the provision received only two minutes of debate after it was introduced on the Senate floor-one minute for Republicans and one minute for Democrats. It was then unanimously adopted by a voice vote. The brevity of Congressional discussion on the felony drug conviction ban makes it difficult to know the intent of Congress in adopting this policy, but the record that does exist suggests the provision was intended to be punitive and "tough on crime." As Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX), the sponsor of the amendment, argued, "if we are serious about our drug laws, we ought not to give people welfare benefits who are violating the Nation's drug laws." Conspicuously absent from the brief debate over this provision was any discussion of whether the lifetime ban for individuals with felony drug offenses would advance the general objectives of welfare reform. In an effort to assess the impact of this policy, this report provides an analysis of the ban on receipt of TANF benefits for individuals with felony drug convictions. First, we survey the current status of the ban at the state level, including actions by legislatures to opt out of the ban in full or in part. Next, we produce estimates of the number of women potentially affected by the ban in those states that apply it in full. We then assess the rationale for the ban and conclude that, for a multiplicity of reasons, the ban not only fails to accomplish its putative goals, but also is likely to negatively impact public health and safety. Finally,we offer policy recommendations for future treatment of the ban on receipt of food stamps and cash assistance for individuals convicted of felony drug crimes. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2013. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 26, 2013 at: http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_A%20Lifetime%20of%20Punishment.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/cc_A%20Lifetime%20of%20Punishment.pdf Shelf Number: 131707 Keywords: Drug Offenders (U.S.)Ex-Offenders RightsFelony OffendersWelfare BenefitsWelfare Reform |
Author: Stageberg, Paul Title: An Analysis of the use of 70% Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Iowa Summary: The Public Safety Advisory Board (PSAB) was created by the Iowa General Assembly in 2010 to provide independent advice to the Legislative and Executive Branches pertaining to operation of Iowas justice system. Included among the PSABs statutory responsibilities are analyzing current and proposed criminal code provisions and providing research, evaluation, and data to facilitate improvement in the criminal justice system in Iowa in terms of public safety, improved outcomes, and appropriate use of public resources. An additional responsibility of the Board includes reviewing and making recommendations relating to current sentencing provisions. This report fulfills the requirements set forth in Iowa Code 216.133A, specifically addressing the effects of the truth in sentencing policies enacted in 1996. The focus of this report is on the impact of the mandatory minimum sentences established in Iowa in 1996 with the goal of punishing and incapacitating criminals convicted of selected forcible felonies in the State. At the time this was considered a step toward increasing public safety, as the felons convicted of the applicable crimes were regarded as being uniformly high-risk and dangerous. Since that time, however, it has become evident that not all offenders convicted of these offenses are dangerous, and research on mandatory terms has suggested that they may be counterproductive For the purpose of this report, the PSAB has attempted to examine the impact of the mandatory minimum terms imposed by Iowa Code 902.12 to enable recommendations as to their continuation or modification as applied to Robbery offenses. We find generally that the one size fits all approach of these mandatory minimums is not an effective or efficient approach; while it may assist in incapacitating some dangerous criminals, it does so at a significant cost and with little distinction between low- and high-risk offenders. We believe that Iowas criminal justice system can do better, both in terms of public protection and efficient use of state resources. Details: Des Moines: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, 2013. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 4, 2014 at: http://www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/images/pdf/Violent_Offender_70Pct_Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/images/pdf/Violent_Offender_70Pct_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 133175 Keywords: Felony OffendersMandatory Minimum Sentences Punishment Sentencing (Iowa) Truth in Sentencing |
Author: Meredith, Marc Title: The Politics of the Restoration of Ex-Felon Voting Rights: The Case of Iowa Summary: We investigate how the restoration of voting rights affects the political participation of ex-felons. Our primary analysis uses unique administrative data from Iowa, which changed how ex-felons restore their voting rights in both 2005 and 2011. Prior to 2005, ex-felons had to apply to apply to the governor restore their voting rights. We show that ex-felon turnout increased after Iowa began to automatically restore these rights. Consistent with misinformation being a significant barrier to ex-felons' political participation, ex-felons were more likely to vote if they were informed about this policy change. The application requirement was re-instated for ex-felons discharged since 2011 and we show that this reduced their 2012 presidential election turnout. We conclude by comparing the actual turnout rate of recently discharged ex-felons in Iowa, Maine, and Rhode Island to the turnout rate predicted by Uggen and Manza (2002). This comparison suggests that although restoration procedures can substantively affect ex- felon turnout, restoration procedures are not the only reason why ex-felons vote less often than observably similar non-felons. Details: Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2013. 63p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 11, 2014 at: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~marcmere/workingpapers/IowaFelons.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~marcmere/workingpapers/IowaFelons.pdf Shelf Number: 129911 Keywords: Ex-Offenders Felon Disenfranchisement (Iowa) Felony OffendersVoting Rights |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Democracy Imprisoned: A review of the prevalence and impact of felony disenfranchisement laws in the United States Summary: This report has been authored by a coalition of non-profit organizations working on civil rights and criminal justice issues in the United States. The following organizations contributed to this report: the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the ACLU of Florida, the Hip Hop Caucus, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. and The Sentencing Project (collectively, the "Reporting Organizations"). Descriptions of each organization are attached as Appendix A. Some of the Reporting Organizations made List of Issues Submissions to the Human Rights Committee (the "Committee") in December 2012. This report updates items from those submissions and provides additional information to aid in the Committee's review of the United States' ("U.S." or "Government") felony disenfranchisement practices. As a supplement to those Submissions, this report includes an overview of the history of and rationale for felony disenfranchisement laws in the United States, considers the U.S.' disenfranchisement practices in the context of other nations, and discusses recent state law developments. After its review of the United States' second and third periodic report, the Committee expressed concern that the country's felony disenfranchisement practices have "significant racial implications." It also noted that "general deprivation of the right to vote for persons who have received a felony conviction, and in particular for those who are no longer deprived of liberty, do not meet the requirements of articles 25 and 26 of the Covenant, nor serves the rehabilitation goals of article 10(3)." The Reporting Organizations are encouraged by the Committee's interest in felony disenfranchisement practices in the United States and share the Committee's concerns about the extent to which these laws and their impact are consistent with the critical human rights protections enshrined in the Convention. The United States continues to lead the world in the rate of incarcerating its own citizens. The reach of the American correctional system has expanded over the course of the past half-century. In 1980, fewer than two million individuals were either incarcerated or on probation or parole; in 2011, that number was over seven million. Despite a decrease in the prison population over the past three years and substantial reform efforts in some states, the overall disenfranchisement rate has increased dramatically in conjunction with the growing U.S. corrections population, rising from 1.17 million in 1976 to 5.85 million by 2010. The growing incarceration rate has been mirrored by the disenfranchisement rate, which has increased by about 500% since 1980. The fact that felony disenfranchisement is so wide-reaching is deeply disturbing, and indicates that these laws undermine the open, participatory nature of our democratic process. Details: New York: ACLU, 2014. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2014 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd_ICCPR%20Felony%20Disenfranchisement%20Shadow%20Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/fd_ICCPR%20Felony%20Disenfranchisement%20Shadow%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 133811 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal DisenfranchisementFelony Disenfranchisement Laws (U.S.)Felony OffendersPolitical Rights, Loss ofRacial DisparitiesVoting Rights |
Author: Prince, Kort Title: 2013 Outcome Evaluation of Salt Lake County's Felony Drug Court Program Summary: Background Salt Lake County's Adult Felony Drug Court (FDC) program began in 1996. Three previous evaluations of the efficacy of the Salt Lake County FDC were conducted in 2000, 2001, and 2005. These studies generally showed a positive effect of drug court participation with lower recidivism rates for drug court participants compared to other offenders (Harrison & Parsons, 2000; Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice (CCJJ), 2001). However, the 2005 study (Van Vleet, Hickert, & Becker) indicated that the lower recidivism rates associated with drug court participation were not significant when other covariates were included. Pre-intervention arrests were the only significant predictor of rearrest. Purpose The purpose of the present study is to provide a current outcome evaluation of the Salt Lake County FDC program. FDC participants who exited in the years 2009-2011 (referred to as participants for the remainder of the report) were selected in order to allow for a sufficient post-exit follow-up period (approximately two years) for the majority of the cohort. Because the identification of a comparison group was outside the scope of this study, the analyses focus on pre- to post-exit changes in recidivism (new charges and convictions), examining the influence of length of program participation, exit status (positive, negative, neutral) and demographic factors. Participant Characteristics The 2009-2011 cohort of participants was primarily White (85%) and male (59%), with an average age of 30 years. The graduation rate for this group was 82% (positive exits; compared to 5% neutral exits and 13% negative exits). Average length of participation was 18-21 months (Mn = 84 weeks; Md = 71 weeks). Recidivism Regardless of exit status, participants had fewer new charge arrests, including drug and property crime charges, in the 18 months after program completion when compared to the 18 months before. This decline cannot be confidently attributed to FDC participation, however, because successful program completion and program duration were not associated with significant reductions in recidivism for any crime except person crimes (though other marginally significant results were found). When comparing pre- and post-program recidivism for person offenses, participants who spent comparatively more time in drug court had fewer new charge arrests in the 18-month post-program follow-up period. Similarly, participants with positive and neutral exits showed significant pre-post decline in person offenses, and participants with negative exits did not. Regardless of exit status, participants had fewer new convictions for any crime, including drug crimes, in the 24 months after program completion when compared to the 24 months before. Longer time in the program was a marginally significant predictor of reductions in convictions for any crime from pre- to post-program. Client Factors Related to Outcomes After controlling for pre-program convictions, there were no differences between males and females or whites and minorities in terms of the number of post-program convictions for either drugs or any crime. When compared to younger clients, clients who were older at the time of intake had less post-program recidivism. An increase in client age of one year was associated with a 1% decrease in the likelihood of post-program convictions. Similarly, neither sex nor minority status was a significant predictor of successful program exit (graduating), but age was. Each one-year increase in age increased the likelihood of successful program completion by 1%. Discussion The most consistent finding of this report is the considerable reduction in criminal recidivism for all FDC groups (positive, neutral or negative exit statuses) from pre- to post-program. It is important to note that pre-program new charge arrests and convictions include the episode that led to their placement in the FDC program if the timing of the offense(s) fell within the time window (e.g., 12 months, 18 months). Longer program duration was occasionally (though often only marginally) associated with less recidivism. This outcome suggests that the FDC program, with respect to some criminal behavior, may (with respect to some criminal behavior) reduce recidivism as a function of exposure to the program and its procedures (e.g., treatment, continual monitoring). Regardless of exit status, the program may have some positive benefits on participants simply as a result of their length of program participation (i.e., whether the participant graduates or not). This interpretation should be regarded with caution, however, as the finding was not robust across all variables and timeframes, and program duration was not associated with lower drug related recidivism (which one might assume would be the area most affected by the FDC program and its procedures). Although all recidivism variables showed remarkable pre to post-program reductions, results should be interpreted with caution until a comparison group can be included in a research design. If a statistically matched comparison group were included in a future analysis (even with retrospective data), and the FDC group showed greater reductions in recidivism compared to the comparison group, it could be more confidently asserted that the FDC program was the cause of the differential improvement. Details: Salt Lake City, UK: Utah Criminal Justice Center, University of Utah, 2013. 22p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 20, 2015 at: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/FDC-Outcome-Evaluation-Final-2013-Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://ucjc.utah.edu/wp-content/uploads/FDC-Outcome-Evaluation-Final-2013-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 136115 Keywords: Drug CourtsDrug OffendersFelony OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRecidivism |
Author: Silbert, Rebecca Title: Criminal Injustice: A Cost Analysis of Wrongful Convictions, Errors, and Failed Prosecutions in California's Criminal Justice System Summary: This report documents mistakes, incompetence, and malfeasance in our criminal justice system. Not only are these systemic errors expensive-costing taxpayers an estimated $282 million adjusted for inflation-they also have serious and lifelong consequences on the people subject to these flawed prosecutions. The individuals in the study endured hundreds of trials, mistrials, appeals, and habeas petitions and served more than two thousand years in prison and jail, all for charges that could not be sustained. The report analyzes a dataset of 692 adult felony criminal cases in California, the majority from 2000-2012, wherein the defendant was convicted of felony or felonies, the convictions were reversed, and the charges were either dismissed or the defendant subsequently found not guilty on retrial. It examines the types of cases susceptible to error, the types of error that exist, and the direct costs of incarceration, representation, and compensation attributable to these cases and their ultimate resolution. Details: Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 2016. 114p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 10, 2016 at: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f70367e4b0974cf2b82009/t/56a95c112399a3a5c87c1a7b/1453939730318/WI_Criminal_InJustice_booklet_FINAL2.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://static1.squarespace.com/static/55f70367e4b0974cf2b82009/t/56a95c112399a3a5c87c1a7b/1453939730318/WI_Criminal_InJustice_booklet_FINAL2.pdf Shelf Number: 138165 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeFelony OffendersWrongful Convictions |
Author: Bucknor, Cherrie Title: The Price We Pay: Economic Costs of Barriers to Employment for Former Prisoners and People Convicted of Felonies Summary: Despite modest declines in recent years, the large and decades-long blossoming of the prison population ensure that it will take many years before the United States sees a corresponding decrease in the number of former prisoners. Using data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), this report estimates that there were between 14 and 15.8 million working-age people with felony convictions in 2014, of whom between 6.1 and 6.9 million were former prisoners. Prior research has shown the adverse impact that time in prison or a felony conviction can have on a person's employment prospects. In addition to the stigma attached to a criminal record, these impacts can include the erosion of basic job skills, disruption of formal education, and the loss of social networks that can improve job-finding prospects. Those with felony convictions also face legal restrictions that lock them out of many government jobs and licensed professions. Assuming a mid-range 12 percentage-point employment penalty for this population, this report finds that there was a 0.9 to 1.0 percentage-point reduction in the overall employment rate in 2014, equivalent to the loss of 1.7 to 1.9 million workers. In terms of the cost to the economy as a whole, this suggests a loss of about $78 to $87 billion in annual GDP. Some highlights of this study include: - Between 6.0 and 6.7 percent of the male working-age population were former prisoners, while between 13.6 and 15.3 percent were people with felony convictions. - Employment effects were larger for men than women, with a 1.6 to 1.8 percentage-point decline in the employment rate of men and a 0.12 to 0.14 decline for women. - Among men, those with less than a high school degree experienced much larger employment rate declines than their college-educated peers, with a drop of 7.3 to 8.2 percentage points in the employment rates of those without a high school degree and a decline of 0.4 to 0.5 percentage points for those with college experience. - Black men suffered a 4.7 to 5.4 percentage-point reduction in their employment rate, while the equivalent for Latino men was between 1.4 and 1.6 percentage points, and for white men it was 1.1 to 1.3 percentage points. This paper updates earlier CEPR research that also examined the impact of former prisoners and those with felony convictions on the economy. Details: Washington, DC: Center for Economic and Policy Research, 2016. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 22, 2016 at: http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/employment-prisoners-felonies-2016-06.pdf?v=5 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://cepr.net/images/stories/reports/employment-prisoners-felonies-2016-06.pdf?v=5 Shelf Number: 139788 Keywords: EmploymentEx-Offender EmploymentFelony Offenders |
Author: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice Title: A report on Chicago's felony courts Summary: At Chicago's Criminal Courts Building at 26th Street and California Avenue, the sheer volume of felony cases has overwhelmed the judges, the prosecutors, and the public defenders. The jail houses nearly 10,000 inmates awaiting trial. It is estimated that at least 20% and perhaps as many as 50% of these inmates suffer from untreated mental illness. The courtrooms hear more than 28,000 cases per year, half of which are non-violent, drug-related charges. Each judge at 26th Street has on average 275 pending cases at any one time. The adult probation department seeks to handle more than 23,000 felony offenders at any one time. Many improvements have been made as the courts struggle to adapt to the realities of operating beyond capacity, but patchwork adaptations are not good enough. This report is a result of unprecedented collaboration among leaders with a commitment to reform. Presiding Judge Paul Biebel, State's Attorney Richard Devine, and Public Defender Edwin Burnette opened their offices to this study and provided both advice and data. An advisory committee of local experts served to identify issues and review findings. Ultimately, the public gets the criminal justice system that it chooses. The choices are made in elections and in decisions on legislation, enforcement priorities, and taxes. The resulting system may not be chosen consciously, but it is chosen nonetheless. Because we disapprove of conduct that we consider immoral, our instinct is to punish it. This may be the case even if the conduct does not directly touch our own lives. But we often do not consider the costs of imposing punishment. Some money is well-spent - the incapacitation of harmful offenders is necessary to the maintenance of an orderly society. Every person put in jail, however, requires that money be spent for police, prosecutors, judges, public defenders, and jailers, and money to house and feed the offender. T1he public, therefore, needs to decide how much the incapacitation is worth. Punishment is purchased at a price, often a high one. Public policy decisions involve tough choices: we want safety, moral rectitude and, at the same time, low taxes, but in criminal justice, as in so much else, we cannot have all we want. We may hope, however, to make informed choices, based on fact. It is our objective here to provide recommendations based on facts and on the informed observations of those most familiar with the criminal justice system. The costs we should take into account are not limited to the expense of operating the criminal justice system; citizens and institutions outside the system bear much of the burden. Imprisonment removes workers from the labor force - in many cases, not just during the period of their imprisonment but permanently. Dealing with drug offenders on a "revolving door" basis, processing their cases but failing to rehabilitate them, produces ruined lives and neighborhoods infested with drug dealers. Misallocation of scarce law enforcement resources imposes costs on the business community because of lost productivity and increased security and healthcare costs, and it imposes costs on the working poor because of lost wages and because the poor are likely to be victims of crime. We can continue to devote our resources to the processing of minor drug cases, with little effect on the markets for drugs, or we can provide more resources aimed at drug and mental health rehabilitation and treatment - and target the criminal justice system on serious crime. If the problems described in this report are not addressed, Cook County's criminal justice system will continue to be unmanageable, costly, and inefficient. It will be a system that fails to do justice fairly and effectively. This report offers recommendations for achieving justice through accountability, independence, diversion, and rehabilitation. Accountability and independence require funding, political insulation, and legislative restraint. Diversion and rehabilitation keep defendants away from the criminal justice system entirely and stop the proverbial "revolving door" of justice through treatment services. There is almost universal acknowledgment among the major players at 26th Street that the Cook County criminal justice system needs significant improvement. Moreover, public opinion data suggest that the majority of the public supports restorative justice. For nonviolent offenders, there is considerable support for "intermediate sanctions" and for "restorative justice." There is not, however, a consensus on what can be done to improve the system. The gap between support for action and necessary action looms large. This study, along with the collaboration of the system's major stakeholders, is a step toward reform and change that is long overdue in Cook County. Details: Chicago: Chicago Appleseed Fund for Justice, 2007. 124p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 29, 2016 at: http://chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/criminal_justice_full_report.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://chicagoappleseed.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/criminal_justice_full_report.pdf Shelf Number: 107838 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCriminal CourtsDiversionFelony OffendersMentally Ill OffendersPublic Defenders |
Author: Johnson, Jennifer E. Title: Adult Felon Workload Study: Summary Report 2013 Summary: Minnesota Department of Corrections (MN DOC) felon community supervision agents last participated in a workload study in 2006. Because districts, technology, evidence based practices, policies, etc. continually change how we do business; there is a need to continually study agent workloads every few years. A total of 48 agents from 14 MN DOC districts tracked over 1,000 adult felons to develop an accurate picture of each supervision level. There were also tasks that were tracked, including pre-sentence investigations; new clients; pre-plea bail bond and worksheets/sentencing memos; incoming transfer investigations; and supervised release investigations. Offenders were tracked for up to three months. Agents logged their time spent on the selected offenders. As expected, changes over the last few years impacted the time it takes an agent to supervise an offender. Details: St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2013. 17p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 22, 2016 at: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/pages/files/4313/9084/6228/Adult_Felon_Workload_Study_2013_.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.doc.state.mn.us/pages/files/4313/9084/6228/Adult_Felon_Workload_Study_2013_.pdf Shelf Number: 146041 Keywords: Felony OffendersOffender SupervisionWorkloads |
Author: Uggen, Christopher Title: 6 Million Lost Voters: State-Level Estimates of Felony Disenfranchisement, 2016 Summary: In this election year, the question of voting restrictions is once again receiving great public attention. This report is intended to update and expand our previous work on the scope and distribution of felony disenfranchisement in the United States (see Uggen, Shannon, and Manza 2012; Uggen and Manza 2002; Manza and Uggen 2006). The numbers presented here represent our best assessment of the state of felony disenfranchisement as of the November 2016 election. Our key findings include the following: - As of 2016, an estimated 6.1 million people are disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, a figure that has escalated dramatically in recent decades as the population under criminal justice supervision has increased. There were an estimated 1.17 million people disenfranchised in 1976, 3.34 million in 1996, and 5.85 million in 2010. - Approximately 2.5 percent of the total U.S. voting age population - 1 of every 40 adults - is disenfranchised due to a current or previous felony conviction. - Individuals who have completed their sentences in the twelve states that disenfranchise people post-sentence make up over 50 percent of the entire disenfranchised population, totaling almost 3.1 million people. - Rates of disenfranchisement vary dramatically by state due to broad variations in voting prohibitions. In six states - Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Virginia - more than 7 percent of the adult population is disenfranchised. - The state of Florida alone accounts for more than a quarter (27 percent) of the disenfranchised population nationally, and its nearly 1.5 million individuals disenfranchised post-sentence account for nearly half (48 percent) of the national total. - One in 13 African Americans of voting age is disenfranchised, a rate more than four times greater than that of non-African Americans. Over 7.4 percent of the adult African American population is disenfranchised compared to 1.8 percent of the non-African American population. - African American disenfranchisement rates also vary significantly by state. In four states - Florida (21 percent), Kentucky (26 percent), Tennessee (21 percent), and Virginia (22 percent) - more than one in five African Americans is disenfranchised. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2016. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2016 at: http://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/6-million-lost-voters-state-level-estimates-felony-disenfranchisement-2016/ Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/6-million-lost-voters-state-level-estimates-felony-disenfranchisement-2016/ Shelf Number: 140825 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesEx-OffendersFelony DisenfranchisementFelony OffendersRacial DisparitiesVoting Rights |
Author: Mungan, Murat C. Title: Disenfranchisement and Over-Incarceration Summary: Disenfranchisement laws in many states prohibit convicted felons from voting. The removal of ex-convicts from the pool of eligible voters reduces the pressure politicians may otherwise face to protect the interests of this group. In particular, disenfranchisement laws may cause the political process to push the sentences for criminal offenses upwards. In this article, I construct a simple model with elected law enforcers who propose sentences to maximize their likelihood of election. I show, with the help of the median voter theorem, that even without disenfranchisement, elections typically generate over-incarceration, i.e. longer than optimal sentences. Disenfranchisement further widens the gap between the optimal sentence and the equilibrium sentence, and thereby exacerbates the problem of over-incarceration. Moreover, this result is valid even when voter turnout is negatively correlated with people's criminal tendencies, i.e. when criminals vote less frequently than non-criminals. Details: Arlington, VA: George Mason University - Antonin Scalia Law School, 2016. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 16-43 : Accessed November 21, 2016 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2863035 Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2863035 Shelf Number: 140231 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesFelony DisenfranchisementFelony OffendersMass IncarcerationVoting Rights |
Author: Oregon. Criminal Justice Commission Title: Oregon Recidivism Analysis Summary: Historically, recidivism in Oregon has been tracked with a single definition: a new felony conviction within three years of release for incarceration or imposition of probation. Criminal justice stakeholders are well versed in this recidivism definition, and some are in the habit of referencing a single recidivism number from memory based on the latest recidivism analysis. The new definition essentially provides three measures of recidivism, and a richer context for recidivism analysis. Developing the analysis necessary to report recidivism using this new definition requires the merging of multiple criminal justice data systems on a scale never achieved before in Oregon. This report is the fourth in a series of comprehensive statewide analysis2 using the definition of adult recidivism in HB 3194 (codified in ORS 423.557). The most recent data available is included, and the statewide recidivism analysis is provided in this report. In addition, the CJC has released an interactive and online data dashboard to present the recidivism analyses3 . This data dashboard includes many different filters and breakouts of the recidivism data, including results by gender, age, race, county, and risk to recidivate level. This dashboard is available to criminal justice stakeholders and members of the public as an interactive and online data sharing tool to provide recidivism analysis results. Many factors can impact recidivism rates such as law enforcement resources and other criminal justice system resources, the risk profile of individuals in the system, changing emphasis on arrests or prosecutions, as well as the use of evidence based programs. This analysis does not attempt to explain why recidivism rates have changed over time, but simply displays the recidivism rates for offenders released from incarceration or sentenced to felony probation statewide. This analysis shows the current statewide rates of recidivism: For those released from prison or from a felony jail sentence in the first six months of 2013: 17% were re-incarcerated for a new felony crime within three years of release, 42% were convicted of a new misdemeanor or felony crime within three years of release, and 55% were arrested for a new crime within three years of release. For those who started a felony probation sentence in the first six months of 2013: 13% were incarcerated for a new felony crime within three years, 41% were convicted of a new misdemeanor or felony crime within three years, and 49% were arrested for a new crime within three years Details: Salem, OR: Oregon Criminal Justice Commission, 2016. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 13, 2016 at: https://www.oregon.gov/cjc/SAC/Documents/Oregon_Recidivism_Analysis_Nov2016.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.oregon.gov/cjc/SAC/Documents/Oregon_Recidivism_Analysis_Nov2016.pdf Shelf Number: 146421 Keywords: Drug OffendersFelony Offenders Recidivism Reoffending |
Author: Wood, Erika Title: Florida: An Outlier in Denying Voting Rights Summary: In recent years, Americans have endured a wave of highly partisan and discriminatory voting restrictions passed in state legislatures across the country. These restrictions have drawn attention for the ways in which they make voting more difficult for many citizens — especially those who are low-income, minority, young, or old. The wave included strict voter ID laws, restrictions on voter registration, and laws to limit access to voter-friendly reforms like early voting. Challenges to those laws are ongoing in courts throughout the country, and their long-term fates are still at issue. But efforts to restrict the right to vote are not new in the United States, and few, if any, restrictions have endured for as long, and disenfranchised as many Americans, as criminal disenfranchisement laws. Across the nation, criminal disenfranchisement laws deny over 6 million Americans a say in our democracy. More than 4.7 million of these citizens have left prison and are in their communities — working, raising families, and paying taxes. At the same time, they remain blocked from joining their neighbors at the polls. People of color bear the brunt of the practice, with over 1 in 13 African Americans disenfranchised — one-third of the total denied the right to vote. Each state has different rules governing who can or cannot vote. In some places the rules are simple: 14 states plus D.C. automatically restore rights when an individual leaves incarceration. But others extend disenfranchisement well beyond prison. For instance, 20 states deny voting rights to people on parole or probation. That includes states like Georgia, where an estimated 250,000 citizens cannot vote, and Texas, where nearly 500,000 people currently cannot vote because of a criminal conviction. But no state disenfranchises more of its citizens than Florida. The state imposes a what for all practical purposes is a lifetime voting ban for people with past felony convictions. In total, more than 1.6 million people have lost their right to vote in Florida, including one in five African-American adults. And to get their voting rights back, citizens must wait five to seven years and submit an application with supporting documentation to the state's governor, who in recent years has denied all but a few hundred applicants out of tens of thousands. Mass disenfranchisement has severe consequences for Florida's communities. For instance, one study found that African Americans in communities subject to harsh disenfranchisement laws experience a decrease in turnout levels, regardless if they themselves were incarcerated. These costs come with no benefits for Florida's public safety. There is no connection between disenfranchisement and deterrence of future crime. Indeed, evidence from Florida suggests that voting makes criminal behavior less likely, explaining support for reform from figures in the law enforcement and corrections sectors. In this report, Professor Erika Wood of New York Law School makes the case against Florida's law — from its Jim Crow roots to its troubling present. Historical accounts make the law's original racist intent very clear. The most current data detail not only the millions of Floridians barred from the polls, but the way in which the state's system perpetuates their disenfranchisement and has even interfered with the voting rights of eligible citizens. This report explains the burden that Florida’s law places on both voters and the state itself, and the urgent need to finally replace it. Change is possible. It's happening throughout the country. Over the last two decades, more than 20 states have allowed more people with past convictions to vote, to vote sooner, or to access that right more easily. In 2016 alone, Maryland’s legislature enfranchised more than 40,000 people, Delaware removed financial barriers to rights restoration, and Virginia's governor committed to restoring voting rights for over 200,000 citizens. And more broadly, Americans are looking for ways to make our criminal justice system smarter, less punitive, and more rehabilitative. Today in Florida, citizens are calling for a ballot initiative to change the state's constitution and dramatically reform Florida's disenfranchisement policy. If successful, the change could restore voting rights to nearly one-quarter of America’s disenfranchised population. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 19, 2016 at: Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 147757 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal DisenfranchisementFelony DisenfranchisementFelony OffendersRacial DistaritiesVoting Rights |
Author: Kelley, Erin Title: Racism & Felony Disenfranchisement: An Intertwined History Summary: The United States stands alone among modern democracies in stripping voting rights from millions of citizens on the basis of criminal convictions. Across the country, states impose varying felony disenfranchisement policies, preventing an estimated 6.1 million Americans from casting ballots. To give a sense of scope - this population is larger than the voting-eligible population of New Jersey. And of this total, nearly 4.7 million are people living in our communities - working, paying taxes, and raising families, all while barred from joining their neighbors at the polls. This widespread disenfranchisement disproportionately impacts people of color.5 One in every 13 voting-age African Americans cannot vote, a disenfranchisement rate more than four times greater than that of all other Americans. In four states, more than one in five black adults are denied their right to vote. Although the data on Latino disenfranchisement is less comprehensive, a 2003 study of ten states ranging in size from California to Nebraska found that nine of those states "disenfranchise the Latino community at rates greater than the general population." While the origins of disenfranchisement can be traced back to early colonial law in North America, and even farther back to ancient Greece, the punishment was typically applied only in individual cases for particularly serious or elections-related crimes. It wasn't until the end of the Civil War and the expansion of suffrage to black men that felony disenfranchisement became a significant barrier to U.S. ballot boxes. At that point, two interconnected trends combined to make disenfranchisement a major obstacle for newly enfranchised black voters. First, lawmakers - especially in the South - implemented a slew of criminal laws designed to target black citizens. And nearly simultaneously, many states enacted broad disenfranchisement laws that revoked voting rights from anyone convicted of any felony. These two trends laid the foundation for the form of mass disenfranchisement seen in this country today. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2017. 6p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 7, 2017 at: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Disenfranchisement_History.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Disenfranchisement_History.pdf Shelf Number: 146769 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal DisenfranchisementFelony DisenfranchisementFelony OffendersRacial DisparitiesVoting Rights |
Author: Lynch, Mathew Title: Arches Transformative Mentoring Program: An Implementation and Impact Evaluation in New York City Summary: The Arches Transformative Mentoring program (Arches) advances New York City's commitment to maintain public safety through community-based programming that supports personal development as a mechanism to avoid future criminal activity. Through a combination of credible messenger mentoring and an evidence-based curriculum, Arches reduces one-year felony reconviction by over two-thirds and reduces two-year felony reconviction by over half. These findings demonstrate the promise of combining an evidence-based curriculum and credible messenger mentoring to achieve recidivism reduction. This evaluation report reflects the findings of a qualitative and impact evaluation of Arches, a group mentoring program serving young adult probation clients ages 16 to 24. Arches uses an evidence-based interactive journaling curriculum centered on cognitive behavioral principles, delivered by mentors with backgrounds similar to those of their mentees, known as "credible messengers," direct service professionals with backgrounds similar to the populations they serve, often including prior criminal justice system involvement. Launched in 2012 as part of the NYC Young Men's Initiative (YMI) and with private funding from Bloomberg Philanthropies and oversight from the Mayor's Office for Economic Opportunity (NYC Opportunity), Arches is managed by the NYC Department of Probation (DOP) and currently operates with City funding at 13 sites across the five boroughs. The evaluation was conducted using a matched comparison group to assess the impact of Arches on participant outcomes, including recidivism reduction; to explore participant and staff experiences in and attitudes toward the program; to identify practices associated with successful programmatic operation and positive outcomes; and to develop recommendations for program enhancement. The evaluation finds that Arches participants are significantly less likely to be reconvicted of a crime. Relative to their peers, felony reconviction rates among Arches participants are 69 percent lower 12 months after beginning probation and 57 percent lower 24 months after beginning probation. This impact is driven largely by reductions among participants under age 18. The evaluation also indicates the program helps participants achieve improvement in self-perception and relationships with others. Pre- and post-assessment show gains in key attitudinal and behavioral indicators, including emotion regulation and future orientation. Qualitative findings show that participants report very close and supportive relationships with mentors, attributed to mentors' status as credible messengers, their 24/7 availability for one-on-one mentoring, and a "family atmosphere" within the program. The report presents several recommendations to enhance the Arches program model and capitalize on its success, including better tailoring the content of the curriculum to reflect the lived experience of the participant population, increasing the frequency and length of programming to support participant engagement, and introducing wraparound and aftercare services. The report highlights the potential for expanded collaboration across Arches providers to improve knowledge sharing and adoption of best practices, as well as enhanced partnerships between Arches providers and other young adult programming to supplement service delivery and grow community awareness of the program. The report also calls for expanded mentor supports, including opportunities for full-time employment and advanced training. This evaluation confirms that Arches is an impactful program with demonstrated ability to reduce participant recidivism and great promise to produce sustainable attitudinal and behavioral change for justice system-involved young adults. New York City has already formalized its commitment to Arches through the new allocation of City funding to sustain the program following the completion of Bloomberg Philanthropies grant funding. Additionally, as part of the Mayor's Action Plan for Neighborhood Safety, the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice has launched the Next STEPS program, a modified version of Arches targeted to serve young adults at risk of justice-system involvement who reside in select high-crime New York City Housing Authority developments Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2018. 81p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 19, 2018 at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/96601/arches_transformative_mentoring_program.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/96601/arches_transformative_mentoring_program.pdf Shelf Number: 149523 Keywords: Cognitive Behavioral ProgramsEvidence-Based ProgramsFelony OffendersMentoringProbationersRecidivismRehabilitation ProgramsYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union Title: Out of Step with the World: An Analysis of Felony Disfranchisement in the U.S. and Other Democracies Summary: Well over 100 years ago, the Supreme Court concluded in Yick Wo v. Hopkins that the right to vote is "fundamental" because it is "preservative of all rights." Even the most basic civil rights, the Court has said, "are illusory if the right to vote is undermined." Foreign courts examining voting rights cases frequently cite American voting rights jurisprudence. Yet, the United States bars from the vote nearly 5.3 million American citizens on the grounds that they committed a crime, although most committed nonviolent offenses and only a quarter are in prison or jail, with three-quarters either on probation or parole or having completed sentences. Particularly since the contested presidential election of 2000, American laws barring people with criminal convictions from voting have come under considerable public scrutiny. In the United States, each state has its own criminal disfranchisement law. In two states people retain the right to vote even while incarcerated, but policies in the other 48 states and the District of Columbia range from disqualification for incarcerated felons to lifetime bans on voting: 48 states bar prison inmates from voting; 36 bar convicted felons from voting while on parole, 31 of these states also excluding felony probationers from voting; 3 states prohibit all ex-felons from voting even after they have fully completed their sentences, and another 9 states permanently restrict from voting those convicted of specific offenses, or require a post-sentence waiting period for some offenders. While disfranchisement policies have been in effect for many years, they are affecting a growing segment of the population, as the United States' criminal justice system continues to convict and imprison more people than ever before. The United States now incarcerates over 2 million people, at a rate of 702 per 100,000. (Including those on parole or probation, or housed in jails, the U.S. has more than 6 million people under some form of criminal supervision.) This incarceration rate is 5-8 times that in comparable industrialized nations, western Europe (e.g., Germany: 97; England & Wales: 144 and Canada: 107). If current trends continue, black males would have a 1 in 3 chance of going to prison during their lifetimes; Hispanics, 1 in 6, and whites, 1 in 17. And though American disfranchisement policies keep a large segment of the entire population from the voting booth, they have a disproportionate impact on African Americans and other minorities. While disfranchisement policies prevent 2.5% of the total population from voting, they prevent 13% of the total population of African American men from casting a ballot. States have begun to alter their disfranchisement rules in the last few years, motivated by concerns about the policy's uneasy relationship with modern American ideas about the right to vote, its illdefined punitive purposes, or its linkages to the racial inequities of the U.S. criminal-justice system. As citizens, lawmakers, and judges in the United States and elsewhere consider the wisdom of laws barring people with criminal convictions from voting, relatively little detailed information has been available about similar policies - or the lack thereof - in other democracies. This report has been written in the hope of improving our understanding of disfranchisement law in the twenty-first century, with a particular eye towards enriching the ongoing discussion of disfranchisement law in the United States - a democracy that has very unusual policies in this area. This report offers the first in-depth analysis of the criminal disfranchisement policies of the world's democracies, with a focus on Europe. (We do also examine, though perhaps not in the same depth, other developed democracies' policies and precedents, namely those of Israel, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.) Simply describing these laws accurately has proven a surprisingly difficult task; a few previous authors have attempted to do so, focusing their attention mostly on documents such as constitutions and election-law statutes.6 We have drawn on their important work here, but have found that constitutions and statutes alone often fail to deliver a full understanding of a given country's disfranchisement policies and practices. In addition to such formal legal sources, this report benefits from exhaustive research into legislative materials, judicial proceedings, advocacy reports, and numerous other sources, including information from original surveys and interviews with governmental and non-governmental officials of several countries. No previous publication has synthesized so much country-by-country disfranchisement data, decisions of high courts, and international legal instruments. Following this Introduction, Section II of the report describes the policies of European nations, and Section III offers detailed summaries of the decisions rendered by various countries' constitutional courts in the last decade. Section IV examines mechanisms used in various democracies to implement prisoner voting, and Section V considers treaties and other legal instruments, both binding and advisory, which bear on the voting rights of people with criminal convictions. These are among the central findings of this study: - Almost half of European countries allow all incarcerated people to vote while others disqualify only a small number of prisoners from the polls. As we explain below, almost all of the countries that disqualify all inmates are in Eastern Europe. - In most countries where disfranchisement does exist, the policy is both more narrowly targeted and more visible in its application than in the United States. - A number of treaties and other types of international instruments support either the abolition of criminal disfranchisement law, or considerably narrower restrictions than those employed by most American states. - All foreign constitutional courts that have evaluated disfranchisement law have found the automatic, blanket disqualification of prisoners to violate basic democratic principles. In countries where courts have called for enfranchisement of inmates, the legislative and executive branches have complied without significant resistance. - Where prisoners are allowed to vote, they do so either in the correctional facilities themselves - with no threat to security - or by some version of absentee ballot, in their town of previous residence, in all cases with government entities facilitating the voting. In no country do prisoners vote in a manner that allows them to shape the politics of the prison locality. Readers will have different responses to this evidence. Some will deduce from the widespread and unproblematic fact of prisoner voting elsewhere that the United States should promptly overhaul its policies. Others may scoff, perhaps having already concluded that the ideas and policies of other countries are and should remain irrelevant to the American political context. We believe no less an authority than the American Declaration of Independence counsels against the latter conclusion. As Jefferson famously wrote, "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires" that we be able to explain the reasons for our policies to others. While it is not our view that the international setting alone justifies a change in American law, we do argue that the evidence compiled here should induce greater skepticism about the wisdom of disfranchisement law in the United States. In our view, this evidence, coupled with the serious and extensive problems these laws pose for both the officials administering them and those affected by them, counsels in favor of rethinking the broad bans and replacing them with rational, tailored bans, or none at all. Given the relative ease (and low cost) of administering absentee ballot voting in prisons, states may want to seriously consider the examples of Maine, Vermont and Puerto Rico. Or, following the example of some European democracies, consider barring only those it makes sense to bar - for example, those convicted of election fraud. Another possibility would be to enfranchise all except the incarcerated, with no documentary requirement complicating reinstatement on the rolls after release from prison. Although such a policy now survives only in the most regressive European nations, it would constitute a significant movement forward for most American states, given how far out of step the United States is on this issue. Moreover, inmate-only disfranchisement - if you are able to appear physically at the polls and meet age and residency requirements, you are eligible to vote - would solve the multitude of problems now bedeviling the administration of disfranchisement policies in the U.S. Details: New York: ACLU, 2006. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 18, 2018 at: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/asset_upload_file825_25663.pdf Year: 2006 Country: International URL: https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/asset_upload_file825_25663.pdf Shelf Number: 117111 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesCriminal DisenfranchisementFelony Disenfranchisement Felony OffendersRacial DisparitiesVoting Rights |
Author: Meredith, Marc Title: Discretionary Disenfranchisement: The Case of Legal Financial Obligations Summary: Appellate courts generally dismiss objections about tying legal financial obligations (LFOs) to the right to vote, at least in part because of the limited, anecdotal evidence available about the nature of LFO assessment and payback. We undertake a massive data collection effort to detail the type, burden, and disparate impact of criminal debt for a representative, statewide samples in Alabama. The median amount of LFOs assessed to discharged felons in Alabama across all of their criminal convictions is $3,956, more than half of which stems from court fees. People utilizing a public defender and blacks are about 15 and 9 percentage points (p.p) more likely to have an outstanding LFO balance, respectively, than people utilizing a private attorney and non-blacks. Consequentially, blacks are about 26 p.p. more likely than non-blacks to have their voting rights restoration applications denied because of outstanding LFOs. Details: Unpublished paper, 2017. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 15, 2018 at: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~marcmere/workingpapers/DiscretionaryLFOs.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~marcmere/workingpapers/DiscretionaryLFOs.pdf Shelf Number: 150188 Keywords: Criminal Justice Debt Ex-Offenders Felon Disenfranchisement Felony OffendersVoting Rights |
Author: Murphy, Don K. Title: Why Crime Doesn't Pay: Examining Felony Collections Summary: What makes collecting in felony cases so difficult? In 2013 alone $278 million dollars were assessed on felony cases state-wide. The collection rate for felony costs was below 14%. That left a collections gap of over $240 million dollars in 2013. While each felony defendant may receive different sanctions, all of them are assessed fines and costs. If these costs are part of the court's sentencing sanctions, what prevents them from being satisfied? What can be done to improve things? This project explored the potential for felony collections both state-wide in Florida and in the local courts of Volusia County. Research identified expectations for felony collections and asked what factors inhibit achieving a better collection rate for these cases. An analysis was then performed to identify the types of investments that should be made by the courts to gain a better collection rate for the felony sanctions assessed each year in Volusia County. The literature review initially began with the National Center for State Courts' CourTools performance measures as a means to seek best practice guidelines on the collection of court fines and fees from a national perspective. However, CourTool Measure 7 focused on misdemeanor case performance rather than felony case types. The literature review continued with a look at best practices in collections that are used in trial courts by examining collections handbooks published by the National Center for State. The project also examined the experiences of four specific state trial courts in Texas, Michigan, Arizona, and California to understand techniques used in these jurisdictions to collect criminal fines and costs. Finally, Florida legislation was analyzed that defines the obligations of court collections. In addition to the literature review, surveys were conducted with collectors in Clerk's offices across Florida to better understand how collections are performed. Court collections experts were surveyed separately to gain insight from long standing collection practitioners concerning their opinions on the challenges and opportunities to improve collections in felony cases. Annual statistics were reviewed from the state mandated Assessments and Collections Report and a five year statistical review was conducted of Volusia County felony cases to explore the characteristics that make collections difficult to obtain, including prison sanctions, defendants who lack the means to pay, and the high dollar assessments required in drug trafficking cases. Literature suggested and results in both surveys supported the finding that felony collections are especially difficult. Two separate data reviews confirmed the depth of the challenge and potential causes that inhibit felony collections. According to the collector's survey, prison sentences contribute to collections difficulties. The Volusia report indicated that over 35% of felony defendants sentenced in Volusia County went to prison over the past five years. Defendants not in prison also faced difficulties paying. Over 70% of all felony defendants were declared indigent by federal guidelines, which determines a defendant's ability to pay costs. Collections were also inhibited by the very large assessments assigned to drug trafficking cases; in Volusia County over the past five years, 1% of all defendants sentenced were for drug trafficking offenses. This accounts for up to 62% of all outstanding felony debt. The Florida Department of Corrections (DOC), is involved with 93% of all sentenced felons. Survey results and an interview with DOC suggested that dialogue between collectors and DOC is limited. DOC staffing constraints require focus primarily towards additional criminal behavior and victim protection, leaving limited time to work with felony payment obligations, and in many cases, defendants' cases are closed with payments due. Felony cases received longer prison sanctions, carried larger fines and costs, and the costs were assessed against defendants with limited abilities to pay. Felony collections have definite challenges that require different types of attention. Working these cases the same as other collections cases will continue to produce unsatisfactory results. Knowing what it takes to collect felony assessments requires an improved focus on factors that inhibit collections from the organizations involved. Legislators require assessment and collection results each year in Florida; these numbers demonstrate a sizeable collections gap. By including factors that inhibit collections in state reporting, reviewers see the challenges associated with collections efforts. Clerks recently introduced these collection inhibitors to the current Assessment and Collections Report to better reflect these factors. Felony cases carry longer sanctions. Adjusting felony collection timelines beyond 12 months would more properly demonstrate efforts made on cases over a period of three years once defendants are released from prison. While in prison, Florida should consider requiring defendants to pay court sanctions. Collections practices in Michigan and Texas confirmed that this process can work and that paying while in prison acknowledges the sanction ordered by the court. It is necessary to orient all court participants towards a program where felony collections become a priority to ultimately improve collections received. Educating participants about the causes will contribute to the solution. Crime can pay in these cases - but it is necessary to take time to properly educate participants about the nuances of felony collections as well as a collaborative approach to felony collections with all justice partners contributing towards the solution. Details: Williamsburg, VA: Institute for Court Management, National Center for State Courts, 2015. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed April 26, 2019 at: https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Education%20and%20Careers/CEDP%20Papers/2015/Why%20Crime%20Doesnt%20Pay-Examining%20Felony%20CollectionsMurphy.ashx Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Files/PDF/Education%20and%20Careers/CEDP%20Papers/2015/Why%20Crime%20Doesnt%20Pay-Examining%20Felony%20CollectionsMurphy.ashx Shelf Number: 155567 Keywords: Court FinesDebtors PrisonFelony ConvictionsFelony OffendersFines and Fees |
Author: Illinois. Circuit Court of Cook County. Office of the Chief Judge Title: Bail Reform in Cook County: An Examination of General Order 18.8A and Bail in Felony Cases Summary: Chief Judge Timothy C. Evans issued a report on May 9, 2019 that reviews the initial results of his order that established new bail practices in the Circuit Court of Cook County. General Order 18.8A took effect on September 18, 2017. The report compares outcomes in two 15-month time periods before and after the order's effective date: (1) July 1, 2016 through September 30, 2017 and (2) October 1, 2017 through December 31, 2018. The report shows that the increased release of pretrial defendants from jail did not increase the threat to public safety in Cook County. In fact, the first full year of bail reform in 2018 coincided with a nearly 8 percent decline in violent crimes reported in Chicago. Bail Reform in Cook County - An Examination of General Order 18.8A and Bail in Felony Cases (May 9, 2019) Appendix Table 1A Initial Bail Order Distribution for Pre G.O. 18.8A Male Defendants by Top Charge Category and Class, PSA-Risk, and Race/Ethnicity Appendix Table 1B Initial Bail Order Distribution for Pre G.O. 18.8A Female Defendants by Top Charge Category and Class, PSA-Risk, and Race/Ethnicity Appendix Table 1C Initial Bail Order Distribution for Post G.O. 18.8A Male Defendants by Top Charge Category and Class, PSA-Risk, and Race/Ethnicity Appendix Table 1D Initial Bail Order Distribution for Post G.O. 18.8A Female Defendants by Top Charge Category and Class, PSA-Risk, and Race/Ethnicity Appendix Table 2 Distribution of 10% D-Bond Bail Amounts for Pre vs. Post Defendants by Gender, Top Charge Category and Class, PSA-Risk, and Race/Ethnicity Appendix Table 3 Pretrial Rate of Release by Gender, Top Charge Category and Class, PSA-Risk, and Race/Ethnicity Appendix Table 4 Court Appearance and Community Safety Rate for Pretrial Defendants by Gender, Top Charge Category and Class, PSA-Risk, and Race/Ethnicity Details: Chicago: Author, 2019. 48p; appendices Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 14, 2019 at: http://www.cookcountycourt.org/Portals/0/Statistics/Bail%20Reform/Bail%20Reform%20Report%20FINAL%20-%20%20Published%2005.9.19.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: http://www.cookcountycourt.org/Portals/0/Statistics/Bail%20Reform/Bail%20Reform%20Report%20FINAL%20-%20%20Published%2005.9.19.pdf Shelf Number: 155821 Keywords: Bail Reform Felony OffendersPretrial Justice |