Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:33 am
Time: 1:33 am
Results for good time
2 results foundAuthor: Klingele, Cecelia M. Title: Changing the Sentence Without Hiding the Truth: Judicial Sentence Modification as a Promising Method of Early Release Summary: Last year, as the State of California struggled with a $42 billion budget deficit, its financial inability to correct constitutionally-deficient prison conditions led a federal court to order the release of 40,000 state prisoners. In Oregon, Michigan, Connecticut, Vermont, and Delaware, spending on corrections now exceeds spending on higher education. Across the nation, more than 1 of every 100 Americans is behind bars. When the financial crisis of 2008 dealt its blow, state correctional budgets were already nearing a breaking point. Now, in the wake of unprecedented budget shortfalls, state governments have been forced to confront a difficult reality: the ever-increasing prison population has come at too high a price. The question is no longer whether to reduce the number of prisoners, but how. Reversing years of ever-harsher sentencing policies, jurisdictions throughout the United States are trying to cut costs by expanding good time credit, increasing parole eligibility, and authorizing new forms of early release. This Article examines judicial sentence modification, an often overlooked ameliorative mechanism that has potential benefits many other forms of early release lack. For states wishing to promote early release in a manner that is both transparent and publicly accountable, judicial sentence modification is a promising, and potentially sustainable, new mechanism for sentence reduction. Details: Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Law School, 2010. 49p. Source: Internet Resource: University of Wisconsin Legal Studies Research Paper No. 1109: Accessed August 3, 2012 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1576131 Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1576131 Shelf Number: 125853 Keywords: Compassionate ReleaseCosts of Criminal JusticeEarly ReleaseEarned Release CreditGood TimeMeritorious Good TimeParoleSentencingState Budgets |
Author: Johnson, Sarah Title: An Analysis on the Effects of Earned Time for Inmates Charged with Robbery Summary: "Good time" - or "earned time", as it is called in Iowa - is a vehicle by which incarcerated inmates are able to earn time off their sentences beyond the time they actually serve. In Iowa, for example, imprisoned inmates exhibiting good behavior earn 1.2 additional days off their sentences for each day served so that, for example, a Class C sentence with a maximum term of ten years can actually expire in just over 4.5 years. Earned time policies were created to serve two critical functions: 1) to allow for the management of prison populations by releasing compliant inmates while keeping inmates incarcerated who are believed to pose more societal risk; and 2) to promote positive inmate behavior while incarcerated, ensuring the safety of other inmates and correctional staff. The purpose of this analysis is to examine the latter contention: do earned time policies achieve their intended purpose by reducing institutional misconduct? Institutional misconduct rates were examined among inmates who were newly admitted to prison between FY2006-FY2008 after originally having been charged with either Robbery-1 or Robbery-2. A conviction under either of these offenses requires serving a mandatory minimum sentence of 70 percent of the maximum prison sentence before being eligible for release. A second component to these mandatory minimum sentences is the limited accrual of earned time, capped at 15 percent to be applied after 70 percent of the sentence has been served. This analysis compares misconduct rates between offenders serving a 70 percent sentence and offenders who escaped the mandatory minimum and were convicted of an alternative (non-70%) crime. Offenders in this analysis are referred to as the 70 percent and non-70 percent groups. The analysis provided the following findings: - Inmates serving non-70 percent sentences tended to have higher amounts of total misconduct than the 70 percent group during year-two and -three of incarceration when examining independent incarceration years (i.e. not cumulatively). - Misconduct rates tended to decrease for both the 70 percent and non-70 percent groups as release approached, although this reduction occurred much earlier for the 70 percent group. - Misconduct rates began to decrease for the 70 percent group around five-and-one-half years prior to release and hovered around zero to six percent until release, while misconduct rates began to decrease for the non-70 percent group only within the last year-and-one-half of incarceration. - Age was one of the strongest and most consistent significant predictors of institutional misconduct. Significant predictors of misconduct during years-two and –three of incarceration also included offender custody classification and facility security level. It is important to note that sentence type (70% or non-70%) was not found to be a significant predictor of offender misconduct. While the findings from this report appear to suggest that earned time has little influence on offender misconduct, it is important to acknowledge the possible effects that removal or modification of the policy could have on misconduct rates. While findings suggest that the rates of misconduct are higher for the non-70% than the 70 percent group, it is possible that, absent earned time policies, misconduct rates could increase or decrease. It should also be remembered that our findings relate specifically to a certain group of offenders (i.e., inmates originally charged with robbery) who are not necessarily representative of prison inmates as a whole. The analysis also occurs within a unique sentencing structure that contains element of both indeterminate and determinate sentencing. It should also be said that these findings should not necessarily suggest abolishment or modification of current earned time practices. Simply doing away with earned time, within Iowa's current sentencing structure, would result in a nearly immediate rise in prison population. Without earned time, a ten-year sentence would actually expire in ten years rather than the current 4.54 years, a change likely to delay discretionary releases (i.e., paroles and work releases) as well as expirations of sentence. While abolishing or reducing the opportunity for earned time may be attractive in terms of "truth in sentencing," such a change should not be made without considering the possible impact on the size of Iowa's prison population. Details: Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning, Statistical Analysis Center, 2014. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 30, 2014 at: https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/CJJP_Analysis%20on%20the%20Effects%20of%20Earned%20time%20for%20Inmates%20Charged%20with%20Robbery.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://humanrights.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/media/CJJP_Analysis%20on%20the%20Effects%20of%20Earned%20time%20for%20Inmates%20Charged%20with%20Robbery.pdf Shelf Number: 132567 Keywords: Early ReleaseEarned TimeGood TimePrisonersRobberySentencing |