Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 9:56 pm
Time: 9:56 pm
Results for prison sentences
9 results foundAuthor: Greene, Judith Title: Downscaling Prisons: Lessons from Four States Summary: This report summarizes reforms and policies that have helped reduce prison populations in New York, Michigan, New Jersey, and Kansas. Policies discussed include sentencing reforms, alternatives to prison, reducing time served, and evaluation of parole policies. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2010. 61p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 117707 Keywords: ImprisonmentPrison OvercrowdingPrison SentencesPrisonersPrisons |
Author: McGuinness, Julie Title: Managing Offenders on Short Custodial Sentences Summary: In the U.K., over 60,000 adults per year receive custodial sentences of less than 12 months. On any given day they make up around 9 percent of all prisoners but account for some 65 percent of all sentenced admissions and releases. This report examines the management of these prisoners by the National Offender Management Service, including how well it assesses and meets prisoners' practical needs and how well it addresses their offending behavior. Details: London: National Audit Office, 2010. 38p. Source: Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, HC 431, Session 2009-2010 Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: Shelf Number: 117293 Keywords: Prison SentencesPrisoners |
Author: Poletti, Patrizia Title: The Impact of Standard Non-Parole Period Sentencing Scheme on Sentencing Patterns in New South Wales Summary: This study investigates whether, since the introduction of standard non-parole periods in February 2003, the use of full-time imprisonment has increased, the lengths of non-parole periods and head sentences have increased, and greater consistency in sentencing has been achieved. The study also examines appeal results for standard non-parole period offences. The findings of this study confirm that the statutory scheme has generally resulted in a greater uniformity of, and consistency in, sentencing outcomes. It also confirms claims that there would be an increase in the severity of penalties imposed and the duration of sentences of full-time imprisonment. Details: Sydney: Judicial Commission of NSW, 2010. 76p. Source: Internet Resource; Monograph 33 Year: 2010 Country: Australia URL: Shelf Number: 119471 Keywords: Criminal Justice, Administration of (New South WalImprisonmentPrison SentencesSentencing (New South Wales) |
Author: Oregon. Criminal Justice Commission Title: Longitudinal Study of the Application of Measure 11 and Mandatory Minimums in Oregon Summary: Nationally, very few studies have examined how mandatory minimum sentencing laws have been applied from indictment through conviction. Even fewer studies have looked specifically at how Oregon’s Measure 11 (M11) changed the disposition of cases. Prior Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) research studied how mandatory minimum sentences have been imposed after conviction, but no data has been available to track the impacts of M11 on affected-cases from indictment through conviction, until recently. Previous CJC research has examined crime rates, criminal justice spending and incarceration rates. The purpose of this report is to analyze M11 and how it has been applied over the past 15 years. This analysis provides a comprehensive examination of the differences between Oregon counties, crime types and other factors in the dispositions of M11 indicted cases. The report also attempts to quantify the discretion used in M11 application, and how discretion has changed hands over time. The analyses of these dynamics show that M11 did not eliminate tough individual sentencing choices, rather it continued the transfer of discretion from judges to prosecutors which started when Sentencing Guidelines were passed by the legislature and went into effect on November 1, 1989. M11 went into effect in 1995 and required mandatory minimum sentences that were longer than Guideline sentences and furthered the power and discretion of prosecutors to control sentences through charging practices and plea bargaining process. This sentencing discretion is now controlled, to a large degree, by how the various prosecutors in the state choose to apply M11. This discretion “flip” by Sentencing Guidelines and M11 has had a substantial impact on sentencing in Oregon. Details: Salem, OR: Criminal Justice Commission, 2011. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 16, 2011 at: http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/Measure_11_Analysis_Final.pdf?ga=t Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.oregon.gov/CJC/docs/Measure_11_Analysis_Final.pdf?ga=t Shelf Number: 122405 Keywords: Prison SentencesSentencing (Oregon) |
Author: New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services Title: Felony Drug Court Activity Among Offenders Eligible Under 2009 Drug Law Changes 2008-2010 Summary: New York’s Rockefeller Drug Laws, enacted in 1973, mandated long prison sentences for many drug offenders. After several amendments to the original laws, in April 2009 the Legislature instituted significant changes. Mandatory prison sentences for some drug offenses were eliminated, and minimum sentence lengths were reduced for others. In October 2009, CPL Article 216 became effective, expanding judicial discretion to offer drug court alternatives to certain addicted nonviolent offenders without the approval of the district attorney. The Article also establshed a mechanism to request a judicial hearing on diversion to drug court. Article 216 is presented in Appendix A. To meet the anticipated increase in diversion cases, OCA established new felony drug courts in St. Lawrence, Dutchess, Madison, Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester counties and expanded existing felony drug courts in New York City. The 2009 reform of New York’s drug laws included a requirement to study the impact of these changes (see Section 837, (4) (b-1) of the Executive Law). DCJS is coordinating this effort and working with other state agencies, including OCA, the Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS), and the Department of Corrections and Community Services (DOCCS). DCJS is also working with New York City agencies, district attorneys’ offices and diversion programs to obtain additional data not available at the State level. This report focuses on the impact of the 2009 drug law changes on drug court screenings and admissions among offenders eligible for judicial diversion under CPL Article 216. Eligible offenses include felony level B, C, D, or E drug offenses and property offenses specified in Article 216. Details: New York: Division of Criminal Justice Services, 2011. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 22, 2012 at http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/drug-law-reform/documents/drug-court-activity-report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/drug-law-reform/documents/drug-court-activity-report.pdf Shelf Number: 123719 Keywords: Drug Courts (New York)Drug LawsDrug OffendersPrison Sentences |
Author: Mills, Helen Title: Reducing the numbers in custody: Summary: This is the second and final paper in the Reform Sector Strategies project funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation. The two papers produced as part of this work intend to generate debate among those committed to reducing the prison population on how to tackle prison expansion in England and Wales and bring about a reduction in the prison population in the longer term. The first paper in the series, Community Sentences: a solution to penal excess?, was published earlier this year. The paper reflected on the limitations of attempts to reduce prison numbers by reforming community sentences, one of the major interventions undertaken by those opposing the high numbers imprisoned in England and Wales in the period since the late 1990s. The paper concluded that attempts to reduce the numbers in prison to below 80/85,000 would require looking for solutions outside the confines of a debate about more and better community sentences. This second paper moves from ‘looking back’ to ‘looking forward’ to what might inform a debate about how to reduce the use of custody in the future. Its main aim is to contribute to such a debate by considering the potential of a perspective which suggests that the challenge of addressing prison numbers can be assessed rather differently than it is in many campaign strategies challenging the use of imprisonment, that of socio-economic explanations for the numbers we imprison. The term ‘socio-economic explanations’ is used to describe an account that locates answers to the question of why we imprison the numbers we do in a wider set of social arrangements and conditions. Its innovation is in bringing together two fields typically regarded as peripheral or even of separate concern to each other: wider socio-economic circumstances and the use of imprisonment. The intention here is to consider a perspective that locates prison and criminal justice system as institutions among a wider set of social and economic arrangements. Socio-economic explanations are also applied to questions about those caught up in the criminal justice system, such as why some people are more (so called) ‘criminal’ than others or why some individuals and not others end up in the criminal justice system. These are not the questions explored here. Locating the challenges for criminal justice change in a wider social context is something the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (CCJS) has had an interest in for a number of years. This paper is a further conntribution to understanding this perspective and focuses on the new question of what the implications of this perspective are for those engaged in work to reduce the use of custody. Details: London: Centre for Crime and Justice Studies, 2012. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 29, 2012 at http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1899/Reducingthenumbersincustody.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/opus1899/Reducingthenumbersincustody.pdf Shelf Number: 123880 Keywords: Community SentencesPrison OvercrowdingPrison Population (U.K.)Prison Sentences |
Author: Sentencing Project Title: The State of Sentencing 2013: Developments in Policy and Practice Summary: The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world and keeps 7.2 million men and women under correctional supervision. More than 2.2 million are in prison or jail while nearly five million are monitored in the community on probation or parole. The scale of the nation's correctional population results from a mix of crime rates and legislative and administrative policies that vary by state. Today, there is general agreement that the high rate of incarceration resulted from deliberate policy choices that impose punitive sentences which have increased both the numbers of people entering the system and how long they remain under correctional control. These policies include an expansion of life without parole as a sentencing option and lengthy terms under community supervision. Despite the nation's four-decade era of mass incarceration, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that the prison population dropped in 2012 for the third consecutive year. About half of the 2012 decline - 15,035 prisoners - occurred in California, which decreased its prison population in response to a 2011 Supreme Court order to relieve prison overcrowding. But eight other states - Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Virginia - showed substantial decreases of more than 1,000 inmates, and more than half the states reported some drop in the number of prisoners. Previous changes in policy and practice may have contributed to the modest decline. Lawmakers have cited the growth in state corrections spending at the expense of other priorities as a reason to change sentencing policies and practices. During 2013, legislators in at least 31 states adopted 47 criminal justice policies that may help to reduce the prison population, improve juvenile justice outcomes, and eliminate the barriers that marginalize persons with prior convictions. The policy reforms outlined in this report document changes in sentencing, probation and parole, collateral consequences and juvenile justice. Highlights include: Six states - Colorado, Hawaii, New Hampshire, Oregon, South Dakota, and Vermont - expanded alternatives to incarceration for certain drug offenses. Three states - Kansas, Oregon, and South Dakota - authorized earned discharge from community supervision. Maryland abolished the death penalty as a sentencing option. Today, 18 states and the District of Columbia no longer authorize the death penalty. Oregon became the third state to authorize racial impact statements for any change to criminal laws or sentencing codes. Five states - California, Illinois, Maryland, Minnesota, and Rhode Island - adopted or expanded policies to address employment barriers for persons with a prior criminal history. Georgia and Nebraska enacted comprehensive juvenile justice measures that included provisions to expand alternatives to incarceration for certain youth. At least eight states - Arkansas, Delaware, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Dakota, Texas, Wyoming, and Utah - modified juvenile list without parole policies. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2014. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 22, 2014 at: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_State%20of%20Sentencing%202013.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Arab Emirates URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_State%20of%20Sentencing%202013.pdf Shelf Number: 132114 Keywords: Criminal Justice PoliciesCriminal Justice ReformPrison SentencesPrisonersPunishmentSentencing |
Author: Human Rights Watch Title: Nation Behind Bars: A Human Rights Solution Summary: Far too many US laws violate basic principles of justice by requiring disproportionately severe punishment, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. The 36-page report, "Nation Behind Bars: A Human Rights Solution," notes that laws requiring penalties that are far longer than necessary to meet the purposes of punishment have given the United States the world's highest reported rate of incarceration. These laws have spawned widespread and well-founded public doubts about the fairness of the US criminal justice system. Details: New York: Human Rights Watch, 2014. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 30, 2014 at: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/2014_US_Nation_Behind_Bars_0.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/2014_US_Nation_Behind_Bars_0.pdf Shelf Number: 132562 Keywords: Human Rights AbusesPrison SentencesPrisonersPunishmentSentencing Reform |
Author: Holbrook, Natalie Title: Ending Perpetual Punishment: The Case for Commutations for People in Michigan Prisons Summary: Life and long indeterminate sentences In these pages youll read the stories of 10 individuals sentenced to serve life or long, indeterminate prison sentences - what we call virtual life sentences - in Michigan. Why are we highlighting these stories? Because they dont often get heard. At AFSC, were fortunate to have the opportunity to work closely with people who have served - or are serving - life or long-term prison sentences. These are people who are often forgotten about once theyre sent to prison, but they are also living proof that healing and personal transformation are possible - that people convicted of serious offenses can return and live as vital parts of our free-world community. Details: Philadelphia, PA: American Friends Service Committee, 2018. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 16, 2019 at: https://www.afsc.org/sites/default/files/documents/AFSCReport_EndingPerpetualPunishment.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.afsc.org/resource/ending-perpetual-punishment Shelf Number: 154171 Keywords: Indeterminate Sentencing Life Sentence Life Without Parole Long-Term Prison Sentence Prison SentencesPrisoners Sentencing |