Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 25, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:22 pm
Time: 8:22 pm
Results for mandatory mimimum sentences
1 results foundAuthor: Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing Title: Report to the Pennsylvania House of Representatives: A Study on the Use and Impact of Mandatory Minimum Sentences: House Resolution 12, Session of 2007 Summary: Mandatory sentences evoke vastly different, but deeply felt responses. Some view mandatory sentences as vital law enforcement tools that yield deterrence, rein in overly lenient Judges, and promote uniformity of punishment. Others view mandatory sentences as counterproductive, if not pernicious, devices that not only fail to deter, but actively promote disparity and injustice. Many of these competing views stem from anecdotes and other small slices of reality. It may be that mandatory sentences fit all of these varied descriptions depending on the circumstances. While much remains to be learned, this report sheds important light on the frequency, effectiveness, and wisdom of mandatory sentences in Pennsylvania. House Resolution 12, adopted October 16, 2007, directed the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing to study the use and impact of mandatory minimum sentences on the criminal justice system in Pennsylvania. In an effort to gather a broad spectrum of input, the Commission established an advisory committee, comprised of legislators, judges, district attorneys, and public defenders. This advisory committee met ten times and offered important guidance to the Commission. In addition, Commission staff conducted interviews, surveys, extensive data analyses and several studies, working in collaboration with faculty and students of The Pennsylvania State University. After considerable study and consultation, the Commission on Sentencing has made numerous findings and issued multiple recommendations, which are discussed in the following pages. For example, the Commission found that: (1) fewer than half of all convictions for mandatory-eligible offenses resulted in the mandatory sentence; (2) only 34% of Pennsylvanians surveyed could correctly name a mandatoryeligible offense; and (3) neither the length of sentence, nor the imposition of the mandatory sentence per se, was a predictor of recidivism. The Commission’s recommendations include specific suggestions for the General Assembly, the Criminal Procedural Rules Committee, and its own future research and actions. Most notably, the Commission recommends that the General Assembly: (1) allow sentencing courts to use existing authorized sentencing options, including State Intermediate Punishment and County Intermediate Punishment, to satisfy lower-level drug trafficking mandatory minimum sentences; (2) amend the drug trafficking statute to increase the threshold for cocaine, eliminate the stacking of previous convictions, link penalties to the aggregate weight of compounds and mixtures in the judicial proceeding, and reduce mandatory fines; and (3) repeal the Drug-Free School Zone mandatory legislation, which is irregularly applied and overbroad geographically, in favor of the existing guidelines-based youth and school sentencing enhancement. Details: State College, PA: Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, 2009. 490p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 10, 2011 at: http://pcs.la.psu.edu/publications/research-and-evaluation-reports/special-reports/house-resolution-12-of-2007-use-and-impact-of-mandatory-minimum-sentences/SpecRptHR12of2007.pdf#navpanes=0 Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://pcs.la.psu.edu/publications/research-and-evaluation-reports/special-reports/house-resolution-12-of-2007-use-and-impact-of-mandatory-minimum-sentences/SpecRptHR12of2007.pdf#navpanes=0 Shelf Number: 120742 Keywords: Mandatory Mimimum SentencesPunishmentSentencing (Pennsylvania) |