Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 3:25 am
Time: 3:25 am
Results for sentencing (new jersey)
3 results foundAuthor: Barlyn, Ben Title: Report on New Jersey's Drug Free Zone Crimes and Proposal For Reform Summary: This report presents a concise summary of the key findings and recommendations of the New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing primarily concerning N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7, commonly known as the drug free school zone law and N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1, commonly referred to as the park zone law. New Jersey’s school zone law mandates enhanced punishment for those that distribute, or possess with intent to distribute, illicit narcotics within 1,000 feet of school property. Ten years after the enactment of the school zone law, the Legislature enacted N.J.S.A. 2C:35-7.1 which mandates enhanced punishment for those that distribute, or possess with intent to distribute, illicit narcotics within 500 feet of public parks, public housing and other public buildings. New Jersey’s cities are among the most densely populated in the nation. Given the large concentration of schools in these areas, the protective zones which surround them have overlapped and coalesced to such an extent that the three cities studied by the Commission – Jersey City, Camden, and Newark – have themselves become all-encompassing drug free zones. The foregoing “urban effect” of the drug free zone laws significantly increases the likelihood that a drug distribution offense will occur within a drug free school zone in urban areas; minorities, who currently comprise a greater proportion of urban populations than rural and suburban populations, are therefore far more likely to be charged with a drug free zone offense and subjected to harsher punishment upon conviction. The unintended, but profoundly discriminatory, impact of the laws is the direct result of the size of the zones defined by the school zone and park zone laws, and is, moreover, significantly amplified by New Jersey’s unique demographic characteristics. The end result of this cumulative “urban effect” of the drug free zone laws is that nearly every offender (96%) convicted and incarcerated for a drug free zone offense in New Jersey is either Black or Hispanic. The “urban effect” greatly undermines the school zone law’s effectiveness in protecting school children: the enormous, unbroken swaths created by the overlapping zones have in fact diluted the special protection of schools that the law was specifically intended to facilitate. A review of geocoded arrest data for illicit drug activity in Newark yields no evidence that drug dealers are aware of school zones, much less that they deliberately undertake their criminal activity to evade exposure to the school zone law. Based on its review of the pertinent data, the Commission concludes that a substantial reduction of the zones will at once significantly enhance the effectiveness of the law while considerably diminishing the disproportionate number of minority drug dealers subject to enhanced punishment avoided by their white suburban and rural counterparts. The Commission’s proposal to amend the school zone and drug free park laws by substantially reducing the zone size to 200 feet remedies both aforementioned deficiencies. The Commission’s proposal would eliminate the mandatory minimum sentence for the school zone offense but would upgrade the crime within the reduced zone to second degree which carries a presumption of imprisonment. Discretionary extended terms of imprisonment for repeat offenders and parole ineligibility terms could still be imposed by judges with respect to drug offenses both inside and outside the zones. This change will ensure that those who sell drugs within close proximity to schools and other protected property will be subject to significant punishment, including the presumption of imprisonment, while also conferring a greater degree of discretion on courts in fashioning fair and appropriate sentences. The Commission recognizes that the financial cost of incarcerating large numbers of drug offenders places a tremendous burden on the State budget and might not constitute the most efficient use of public funds to promote public safety by preventing future drug crimes. Further study is urgently required. The Commission’s findings and recommendations with regard to the drug free zone laws are unanimous. The Commission will continue to collect data and carefully monitor application of the current drug free zone provisions, as well as subsequently enacted provisions. These findings will be presented to the Legislature and the public on a periodic basis. Details: Trenton, NJ: New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing, 2005. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 3, 2010 at: http://www.sentencing.nj.gov/publications.html Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.sentencing.nj.gov/publications.html Shelf Number: 100375 Keywords: Drug Free School ZonesDrug OffendersRacial DisparitiesSentencing (New Jersey) |
Author: New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing Title: Statutory Changes to Sentencing Under the NJ Code of Criminal Justice: 1979 to the Present Summary: Enacted 28 years ago, the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice wrought changes in sentencing practice and policy, both substantive and procedural, that constituted a major, if not revolutionary, advance over the scheme it supplanted. In short, the Code imposed a rational and comprehensive framework for imposing sentencing on a system that plausibly could be characterized as anarchic. That having been said, 28 years is a substantial period of time by any measure, and much has changed since 1979. Specifically, during the intervening years between the Code’s enactment and the present, the Legislature has consistently amended the Code by adding provisions that defined new crimes or modified (typically through enhancement) punishment for existing offenses. This ongoing accumulation of new provisions has, to some observers, fundamentally altered the underlying philosophy and architecture of the sentencing scheme established by the Code and envisioned and championed by those responsible for bringing the Code into existence. This report endeavors to accurately chart these changes and to place them in a context that enables the reader to clearly appreciate the extent to which sentencing law and practice has been steadily transformed since 1979. It cannot be too strongly emphasized that the content of this document is intended to be descriptive rather than prescriptive – no opinion or judgment is proffered as to the wisdom or propriety of the enactments described herein. The Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing does strongly hope that this report precipitates a much-needed and manifestly long-overdue discussion among key stakeholders, including the judiciary, elected officials, law enforcement, the defense bar, corrections officials, and, importantly, the general public, regarding whether to engage in a comprehensive evaluation and reassessment of the Code’s sentencing scheme and consider whether systemic reform is required. Details: Trenton: New Jersey Commission to Review Criminal Sentencing, 2007-2008. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 3, 2010 at: http://www.sentencing.nj.gov/downloads/pdf/Statutory_Changes_to_Sentencing.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.sentencing.nj.gov/downloads/pdf/Statutory_Changes_to_Sentencing.pdf Shelf Number: 120373 Keywords: Sentencing (New Jersey) |
Author: Robinson, Paul H. Title: Crime and Punishment in New Jersey: The Criminal Code and Public Opinion on Sentencing Summary: This groundbreaking report contains two major findings: The first finding comes from the survey of 222 New Jersey residents regarding their opinions on the level of seriousness (and thus punishment) of 108 criminal offenses. For almost 90 percent of the offenses about which New Jersey residents were asked their opinion, the survey respondents categorized the offenses as belonging in a less serious category, and therefore deserving of a less serious penalty, than what is actually mandated by the criminal code. In other words, the penalties contained in the criminal code are at odds with the values of New Jersey residents. The second finding is that the structural flaws of the original criminal code, exacerbated by years of amendments and additions, have created a seriously flawed system of offenses and penalties. New Jersey enacted its Code of Criminal Justice in 1978. The code established a comprehensive list of 243 critical offenses and suboffenses. Since then there has been an enormous number of offense-related legislative amendments: 863 – an average of nearly 29 amendments every year for 30 years. The large number of amendments has seriously degraded the original criminal code and produced an increasingly convoluted body of law riddled with grading irrationalities and internal inconsistencies. Today, there are 650 offenses listed in the criminal code and another 904 offenses that have been added in New Jersey statutes other than the criminal code for a total of 1,554 total criminal offenses. This stunning growth has resulted in a code that has become increasingly irrational in its categorization (and punishment) of offenses and unfair in its application. Details: Trenton, NJ: Drug Policy Alliance, 2011. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 19, 2012 at http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Crime%20and%20Punishment%20In%20New%20Jersey%20With%20All%20Appendices%20FINAL_0.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Crime%20and%20Punishment%20In%20New%20Jersey%20With%20All%20Appendices%20FINAL_0.pdf Shelf Number: 124184 Keywords: Public OpinionSentencing (New Jersey) |