Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:38 pm
Time: 8:38 pm
Results for sentencing reform
36 results foundAuthor: Gill, Molly M. Title: Correcting Course: Lessons from the 1970 Repeal of Mandatory Minimums Summary: This report calls for the U.S. Congress to reform mandatory minimum sentencing. It presents two options: excise all mandatory minimums for drug offenses found in the criminal code or expand the existing "safety valve" to allow judges to depart from the statutory sentence when that punishment would be excessive. Either solution will result in better and more cost effective criminal justice and pave the way for smarter alternatives. Details: Washington, DC: Families Against Mandatory Minimums, 2008. 36p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118706 Keywords: Drug OffendersSentencingSentencing Reform |
Author: Huenke, Chuck Title: Delaware's House Bill 210: A Tradeoff of Lighter Drug Trafficking and Repeat Drug Selling Sentences for Harsher Sentences for Serious Person and Property Crimes Summary: In terms of criminal justice policy, House Bill 210 is surpassed in importance only by such changes as the establishment of the Sentencing Accountability Commission in 1987 (SENTAC) and Truth in Sentencing in 1990. When House Bill 210 became law on June 30, 2003 the expectation was that the impact of the significant reductions in the controversial drug trafficking and repeat drug selling mandatory sentences would be offset by the increased penalties for serious crimes such as Robbery 1st, Assault 1st, Burglary 1st, and Burglary 2nd. It was estimated that initially there would be a short-term savings due to the decrease in the number of Department of Correction (DOC) beds used for drug dealers and that over the long-run more beds would be needed for the longer violent offenders’ terms. Eventually the combination of the shorter drug and longer violent crime sentences would result in a bed neutral DOC impact. This goal would have been met, if all other things besides sentence length had remained constant between 2003 and 2007. However, as this study documents, criminal justice practice and crime volume shifts cannot always be anticipated resulting in unexpected outcomes. The initial HB 210 study (DelSAC, October 2005) showed a significant decrease in the need for DOC beds. At this early stage, not only were 298 DOC beds saved due to shorter drug selling sentences, but also fewer than expected Robbery 1st Degree cases received the new 3-year minimum term, resulting in an additional 57 DOC bed savings. Overall in the initial phases of HB 210 there was a surprising 355 bed savings. This bed savings contributed to the no-growth period in the DOC prison population in 2003 and 2004. In this follow-up study, the 2006 HB 210 sentence lengths – longer for violent crimes and shorter for drug selling – for the most part conformed to the new law. However, instead of a bed saving as was initially experienced, or a bed neutral result that was originally expected, by 2006 – 2007 there was a need for at least 338 more DOC beds. This increased bed demand was caused more by changes in crime volume, conviction rates and plea-bargaining than deviations from the expectations for HB 210. Of special note is the significant increase in the use of habitual sentences in place of the shorter HB 210 drug sentences. While there was speculation that this might happen, this is the first documentation that such a change actually occurred. These changes since 2004, many of them unanticipated, contributed to the increased 2006 and 2007 DOC prison populations. Brief summaries of the complex changes associated with HB 210 cases are provided below prior to the report’s detailed analysis. Details: Dover, DE: Delaware Office of Management and Budget, Statistical Analysis Center, 2008. 16p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 8, 2010 at: http://sac.omb.delaware.gov/publications/documents/HB210_Jan_2008.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://sac.omb.delaware.gov/publications/documents/HB210_Jan_2008.pdf Shelf Number: 120416 Keywords: Drug Laws (Delaware)Prison OvercrowdingSentencing Reform |
Author: Przybylski, Roger K. Title: Correctional and Sentencing Reform for Drug Offenders: Research Findings on Selected Key Issues Summary: In Colorado and across the nation, offenders convicted of a drug crime make up a sizeable proportion of the prison population. A far larger number of imprisoned offenders are drug-involved or addicted to alcohol or illicit substances. Given the impact that substance abuse and addiction have on prison populations and government spending overall, it is reasonable to explore whether there are safe and cost-effective ways of dealing with drug offenders other than imprisonment. Research has clearly shown, for example, that substance abuse treatment is both effective and cost-beneficial, while incarcerating drug offenders is not a cost-effective use of taxpayer dollars. According to the Vera Institute of Justice, there is an emerging consensus in some states that sentences for drug offenses, particularly those involving simple possession, should be reassessed and that community-based treatment may be a more cost-effective sanction than incarceration for drug offenders. Indeed, the Illinois Consortium on Drug Policy at Roosevelt University’s Institute for Metropolitan Studies recently reported that at least 22 states enacted sentencing reform for drug offenders between 2004 and 2006 alone. This report was developed by RKC Group to support informed discourse on criminal justice policy regarding drug-involved offenders. The report addresses nine specific questions or issues. Findings presented on each are based on a comprehensive review of the criminology and criminal justice literature. Information was obtained by reviewing research, evaluation and other reports with a focus on providing policy makers with objective, accurate, and up-to-date information that can be used to develop safe and more cost-effective approaches for dealing with drug law violators and other substance abusing offenders. Key findings are presented. Details: Lakewood, CO: RKC Group, 2009. 83p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2011 at: http://www.ccjrc.org/pdf/Correctional_and_Sentencing_Reform_for_Drug_Offenders.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.ccjrc.org/pdf/Correctional_and_Sentencing_Reform_for_Drug_Offenders.pdf Shelf Number: 120862 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationDrug Abuse TreatmentDrug OffendersSentencing Reform |
Author: McLeod, Jeffrey S. Title: State Efforts in Sentencing and Corrections Reform Summary: States continue to struggle during what is the most difficult fiscal environment since the Great Depression. Projections are that the economic recovery will be slow, forcing states to think longterm about how to do more with less. Full economic recovery may not happen until the end of the decade. With corrections among states’ largest expenditures, many are rethinking their approaches to sentencing and corrections practices as they seek to constrain spending. Between 2009 and 2010, at least 40 states made cuts to general fund expenditures for corrections. They are reducing staff salaries, benefits, or overtime, eliminating prison programs, and making food-service changes. Furthermore, states have been increasingly focused on finding ways to decrease overall prison populations. Given that the average prison bed now costs $29,000 a year, they are looking for ways to reduce the number of nonviolent and low-risk individuals going to prison, to move offenders who can be safely managed in the community out of prison sooner, and to keep ex-offenders out of prison through improved prisoner reentry practices. Ultimately, states aim to reduce prison populations enough to allow them to close prisons. States are accomplishing reductions through sentencing reform, efforts to reduce offender recidivism, and parole and probation reform. For example: South Carolina approved a sentencing reform package in 2010 that the state estimates will reduce the need to build and operate new prison beds by 1,786, saving up to $241 million by reducing incarceration of nonviolent offenders and more closely supervising released inmates to reduce recidivism; Nevada saved $38 million in operating expenditures by FY 2009 and avoided $1.2 billion in new prison construction by making key sentencing reforms, including expanding the number of credits inmates could earn for “good time” and the number of credits those on community supervision could earn for complying with conditions; and Kentucky passed legislation expected to save the state $422 million over the next decade by diverting certain drug offenders into treatment rather than prison and reserving prison space for violent and career criminals. The challenge to states is to make cuts in corrections spending while maintaining public safety. Fortunately, there now exists a significant body of research about which sentencing and corrections practices work and which do not. Research shows that implementation of evidence-based practices leads to an average decrease in crime of between 10 percent and 20 percent. Programs that are not evidence-based, on the other hand, tend to see no decrease or even a slight increase in crime. States can use that knowledge to make more informed decisions about which policies and programs to support as they seek to reduce spending on corrections. This Issue Brief provides an overview of the cost drivers behind corrections expenditures and identifies critical decision-points for states to consider as they take action to reduce costs. It also examines challenges to enacting reforms and makes recommendations for states looking to improve public safety with fewer resources. Those recommendations include: Pursue an approach to reform that involves coordination and collaboration among state executive, legislative, and judicial branches; Adopt evidence-based practices proven to reduce recidivism and eliminate programs shown to be ineffective or harmful; Target high-risk offenders and tailor sentencing, treatment, and release decisions to individual risk factors; Support mandatory supervision and treatment in the community; and Use real-time data and information for decision-making. Details: Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices, 2011. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 11, 2011 at: http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1110SENTENCINGREFORM.PDF Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.nga.org/files/live/sites/NGA/files/pdf/1110SENTENCINGREFORM.PDF Shelf Number: 123315 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeEvidence-Based PracticesExpenditures in Criminal JusticeSentencing (U.S.)Sentencing Reform |
Author: Gotsch, Kara Title: Breakthrough in U.S. Drug Sentencing Reform: The Fair Sentencing Act and the Unfinished Reform Agenda Summary: Last year's (2010) passage of the federal Fair Sentencing Act, legislation that reduced the 100-to-1 sentencing disparity for crack cocaine offenses and eliminated the five-year mandatory minimum for simple possession of crack cocaine, reformed a law universally condemned for its harshness and for the racial disparity it produced. The reform is part of a larger movement to reconsider long mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug offenses that pervade sentencing policy in the United States as well as in Latin America. Passage of the Fair Sentencing Act in August 2010 marked the first time in 40 years that the U.S. Congress eliminated a mandatory sentence. The legislation was historic at a time when intense partisan wrangling over a broad range of issues on Capitol Hill dominated debate and stymied action. Hopefully, the breakthrough represented by the Fair Sentencing Act will contribute to a broader movement to address disproportionate punishment and ensure a fairer justice system. WOLA’s new report by Kara Gotsch, director of advocacy at The Sentencing Project, describes the effort that led to passage of the Fair Sentencing Act and points to the unfinished sentencing reform agenda. The report highlights the importance of the reform beyond U.S. borders and argues that “given the United States’ role as the principal architect and major proponent of a global drug control system that has emphasized ‘zero-tolerance’ and criminal sanctions, the passage of the Fair Sentencing Act is a milestone not only for U.S. policy, but also for reform advocates in other countries.” Details: Washington, DC: Washington Office on Latin America, 2011. Source: Internet Resource: January 31, 2012 at http://sentencingproject.org/doc/dp_WOLA_Article.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/dp_WOLA_Article.pdf Shelf Number: 123914 Keywords: Drug Laws (U.S.)Mandatory Minimum SentencesSentencingSentencing Reform |
Author: Smith-Heisters, Skaidra Title: The Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act: Prison Overcrowding, Parole and Sentencing Reform (Proposition 5) Summary: California’s prisons are overburdened because state policies have created an endless cycle of incarceration that does little to promote public safety. An estimated one-third of inmates in California prisons are nonviolent recidivists who have never been sentenced for a violent crime.1 Meanwhile, as a result of sentencing changes in the late 1970s and early ’80s, the prison population has quadrupled, the parolee population has more than quadrupled, and general fund expenditures for the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) have ballooned from 2 percent to 10 percent, or more than $10 billion today. State institutions are at double their capacity, resulting in such poor performance that portions of the state’s criminal justice system are now run by federal mandate. The threat of federal takeover of more of the state’s failing prison system is real and significant. Proposition 5, the Nonviolent Offender Rehabilitation Act, will be decided by voters in the November 4, 2008 General Election. The proposition contains within it some of the important reform measures that numerous advisory committees have for years urged the state to implement.2 These reforms would help to break the state’s appallingly high prison recidivism rate by bringing California’s parole terms and sanctions for parole violation more in line with other states’, which have managed incarcerated populations more effectively. Proposition 5 would also build on the cost-saving drug treatment programs approved by voters in 2000 under Proposition 36, the Substance Abuse and Crime Prevention Act. Details: Los Angeles, CA: The Reason Foundation, 2008. 19p. Source: Policy Brief 74: Internet Resource: Accessed on February 3, 2012 at http://reason.org/files/fca481a6c38c69c7f9ae9761e97bb053.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://reason.org/files/fca481a6c38c69c7f9ae9761e97bb053.pdf Shelf Number: 123928 Keywords: Nonviolent Offenders (California)Offender RehabilitationParolePrison Overcrowding (California)Sentencing Reform |
Author: Porter, Nicole D. Title: The State of Sentencing 2011: Developments in Policy and Practice Summary: This report from the Sentencing Project highlights 55 reforms in 29 states and documents a growing trend to reform sentencing policies and scale back the use of imprisonment without compromising public safety. The report provides an overview of recent policy reforms in the areas of sentencing, probation and parole, collateral consequences, and juvenile justice. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2012. 26p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on February 3, 2012 at http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/sen_State_of_Sentencing_2011.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/publications/sen_State_of_Sentencing_2011.pdf Shelf Number: 123939 Keywords: Crime StatisticsPrison PopulationSentencing (U.S.)Sentencing Reform |
Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: Due South: Looking to the South for Criminal Justice Innovations Summary: Southern states historically have had some of the highest incarceration rates in the U.S., regularly trumping the national average. Recognizing the significant costs associated with such high incarceration rates, a number of these states have recently implemented innovative strategies for reducing their prison and jail populations and ensuring better outcomes for people who come into contact with the criminal justice system. These strategies start at the time of arrest, include sentencing reform, and impact who is released from prison on parole and the reentry services they receive upon return to the community. Each of these reforms have either already shown positive results or have significant potential to reduce prison or jail populations, save money and improve public safety. While a number of challenges still face these states and localities around their criminal justice policies, these reforms indicate a significant step toward more fair and effective policies. Although a number of states and localities have implemented or are in the process of creating reforms for youth involved in the juvenile justice system, this brief reviews only adult criminal justice reforms. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2011. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 28, 2012 at http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/due_south-full_report.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/due_south-full_report.pdf Shelf Number: 124307 Keywords: Incarceration Rates (U.S.)Prison PopulationReentrySentencing Reform |
Author: Rogers, Audrey Title: From Peer-To-Peer Networks to Cloud Computing: How Technology is Redefining Child Pornography Laws Summary: Child pornography circulating in cyberspace has ballooned into the millions. To punish this flood, the law must accurately delineate culpable conduct. Technology such as peer-to-peer networks has erased the divisions among traders of child pornography, and, therefore, the differentials in punishment have lost their underpinnings. The current sentencing controversy surrounding child pornographers is merely the tip of the iceberg of the larger need to revamp the offenses themselves. This paper provides a framework for a normative critique of the offenses and their sentences. It suggests the law could better reflect technology by comporting with a refined harm rationale that rests on the fundamental injury to the victim’s dignity and privacy. Drawing on comparisons to diverse laws such as the Geneva Convention’s ban on photographs of prisoners of war, this paper states all traders in child pornography violate the rights of the children depicted and therefore inflict harm, albeit at different levels. Accordingly, the paper proposes three categories: producers, traders, and seekers of child pornography with base sentences varying accordingly. Starting at the same base level, the Sentencing Commission could then propose enhancements or departures to distinguish among the traders and their individual culpability. Details: Social Science Research Network, 2012. 41p. Source: Working Paper Series: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2012 at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2006664& Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2006664& Shelf Number: 124403 Keywords: Child PornographyCybercrimesInternet CrimesSentencingSentencing Reform |
Author: Ryan, Meghan J. Title: Breakthrough Science and the New Rehabilitation Summary: Breakthroughs in pharmacology, genetics, and neuroscience are transforming how society views criminals and thus how society should respond to criminal behavior. Although the criminal law has long been based on notions of culpability, science is undercutting the assumption that offenders are actually responsible for their criminal actions. Further, scientific advances have suggested that criminals can be changed at the biochemical level. The public has become well aware of these advances largely due to pervasive media reporting on these issues and also as a result of the pharmaceutical industry’s incessant advertising of products designed to transform individuals by treating everything from depression to sexual dysfunction. This public familiarity with and expectation of scientific advances has set into motion the resurrection of the penological theory of rehabilitation that has lain dormant since the mid-1970s. The New Rehabilitation that is surfacing, however, differs in form from the rehabilitation of the earlier era by effecting change through biochemical interventions rather than through attempting to change an offender’s character. This raises novel concerns about this New Rehabilitation that must be examined in light of the science that has sparked its revival. Details: Unpublished, 2010. 51p. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2019368 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2019368 Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 20, 2012 at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2019368 Year: 9368 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2019368 Shelf Number: 124608 Keywords: Criminal PsychologyDrugs and CrimeRehabilitationSentencingSentencing Reform |
Author: Mauer, Marc Title: To Build a Better Criminal Justice System: 25 Experts Envision the Next 25 Years of Reform Summary: In a new publication of The Sentencing Project 25 leading scholars and practitioners have contributed essays on their strategic vision for the next 25 years of criminal justice reform. Issues addressed in the collection include racial justice strategies, linking public health and criminal justice reform, challenging the war on drugs, and the viability of fiscal pressures as a focus for reform. Details: Washington, D.C.: The Sentencing Project, 2012. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2012 at http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_25_eassys.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/sen_25_eassys.pdf Shelf Number: 124637 Keywords: Administration of JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice SystemsDrug PolicyIncarcerationJuvenile JusticeRacial DisparitySentencing ReformVoting Rights |
Author: Kent, Jody Title: A Just Alternative to Sentencing Youth to Life in Prison Without the Possibility of Parole Summary: There are more than 2,500 people in the United States serving life in prison without the possibility of parole for crimes committed under the age of eighteen. In the spring of 2010, the United States Supreme Court is expected to rule on the constitutionality of imposing such sentences on a subset of these juvenile offenders who were convicted of non-homicide crimes. This constitutional challenge was brought before the court in two cases, Sullivan v. Florida and Graham v. Florida, for for which arguments were heard in November 2009. As Chief Justice John Roberts acknowledged in those oral arguments, the Court has previously recognized that “juveniles are different.” Regardless of whether the Court extends that precedent to find the sentencing of youth to life in prison without the possibility of parole unconstitutional in one or both of these cases, advocates for youth have called for reform of extreme sentencing policies, on the basis that they grossly undermine rational, fair, and age-appropriate treatment of youth. This Issue Brief begins by explaining why the practice of sentencing youth to life in prison without the possibility of parole is deeply flawed public policy. First, we address the long-recognized principle that youth are different from adults, reinforced in recent years by adolescent development brain science, as well as by examples of youth who were successfully rehabilitated. Second, we critique the frequently argued notion that harsh sentencing is necessary to protect public safety, a premise undermined by both the inconsistent and arbitrary application and by the resulting diversion of taxpayer dollars that could be used to increase public safety through prevention programs. Third, we discuss how the sentencing of youth to life in prison without the possibility of parole undermines America’s moral standing in the world, as the only nation in the world that imposes this irrevocable sentence on people under the age of eighteen. We conclude the Issue Brief with a suggested alternative to the practice of sentencing youth to life in prison without the possibility of parole which balances the need to hold youth who commit serious crimes accountable, while still recognizing their inherent capacity for change. We recommend the creation of a system that would allow for meaningful periodic review of sentences given to youth convicted of serious offenses to determine whether they continue to pose a threat to society or may be able to return to our communities as productive citizens. This is a common sense solution to an irrational and grossly misguided policy. Details: Washington, DC: American Constitution Society for Law and Society, 2010. 10p. Source: Issue Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2012 at http://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Kent%20Colgan%20Juvenile%20Life%20Issue%20Brief_0.pdf Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.acslaw.org/sites/default/files/Kent%20Colgan%20Juvenile%20Life%20Issue%20Brief_0.pdf Shelf Number: 126404 Keywords: Life Imprisonment, JuvenilesLife Without Parole, JuvenilesSentencing ReformSentencing, Juveniles |
Author: Subramanian, Ram Title: Sentencing and Prison Practices in Germany and the Netherlands: Implications for the United States Summary: Germany and the Netherlands have significantly lower incarceration rates than the United States and make much greater use of non-custodial penalties, particularly for nonviolent crimes. In addition, conditions and practices within correctional facilities in these countries - grounded in the principle of "normalization" whereby life in prison is to resemble as much as possible life in the community - also differ markedly from the U.S. In February 2013 - as part of the European-American Prison Project funded by the California-based Prison Law Office and managed by Vera - delegations of corrections and justice system leaders from Colorado, Georgia, and Pennsylvania together visited Germany and the Netherlands to tour prison facilities, speak with corrections officials and researchers, and interact with inmates. Although variations in the definitions of crimes, specific punishments, and recidivism limit the availability of comparable justice statistics, this report describes the considerably different approaches to sentencing and corrections these leaders observed in Europe and the impact this exposure has had (and continues to have) on the policy debate and practices in their home states. It also explores some of the project's practical implications for reform efforts throughout the United States to reduce incarceration and improve conditions of confinement while maintaining public safety. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2013. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: accessed October 1, 2013 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/european-american-prison-report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/european-american-prison-report.pdf Shelf Number: 131576 Keywords: PunishmentSentencingSentencing Reform |
Author: Subramanian, Ram Title: Playbook for Change? States Reconsider Mandatory Sentences Summary: Since 2000, at least 29 states have taken steps to roll back mandatory sentences, with 32 bills passed in just the last five years. Most legislative activity has focused on adjusting penalties for nonviolent drug offenses through the use of one or a combination of the following reform approaches: 1) expanding judicial discretion through the creation of so-called "safety value" provisions, 2) limiting automatic sentence enhancements, and 3) repealing or revising mandatory minimum sentences. In this policy report, Vera's Center on Sentencing and Corrections summarizes state-level mandatory sentencing reforms since 2000, raises questions about their impact, and offers recommendations to jurisdictions considering similar efforts Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2014. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2014 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/mandatory-sentences-policy-report-v2b.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/mandatory-sentences-policy-report-v2b.pdf Shelf Number: 132066 Keywords: Drug OffendersMandatory Minimum SentencesPunishmentSentencingSentencing Reform |
Author: Justice Policy Institute Title: Billion Dollar Divide: Virginia's Sentencing, Corrections and Criminal Justice Challenge Summary: Billion Dollar Divide points to racial disparities, skewed fiscal priorities, and missed opportunities for improvements through proposed legislation, and calls for reforms to the commonwealth's sentencing, corrections and criminal justice system. While other states are successfully reforming their sentencing laws, parole policies and drug laws, Virginia is lagging behind and spending significant funds that could be used more effectively to benefit public safety in the commonwealth. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute, 2014. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 19, 2014 at: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/billiondollardivide.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/billiondollardivide.pdf Shelf Number: 132068 Keywords: Correctional InstitutionsCriminal Justice ReformDrug PolicyParoleRacial DisparitiesSentencingSentencing Reform |
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: Trebilcock, Julie Title: No winners: The reality of short term prison sentences Summary: Every year over 60,000 adults receive a short prison sentence of less than 12 months. These prisoners usually serve half of their sentence in custody and the remainder in the community. Although they can be returned to prison during the second half of their sentence if they commit another crime, they are not subject to post-release supervision or intervention from probation (unless they are aged between 18 and 21 years). While in prison, the short time available often means there is little opportunity to adequately address the needs of this population, with limited access to offending behaviour programmes, education and work (Lewis et al, 2003; National Audit Office, 2002, 2008, 2010; Social Exclusion Unit, 2002). On release, short sentence prisoners often face a number of barriers to their resettlement, highlighting that 'those serving short sentences, receive little practical support, before release or afterwards' (Social Exclusion Unit, 2002). This is despite the fact that short sentence prisoners have the highest re-conviction rates amongst adult prisoners (Lewis et al, 2003; National Audit Office, 2010). In 2009, the Commission on English Prisons Today called for 'radical and transformational change' and for short prison sentences to be replaced with community penalties (Howard League, 2009:6). In the same year a motion was passed by the Prison Governors' Association (PGA) to abolish prison sentences of 12 months and under on the basis that they do not work. Since then, a number of other key stakeholders have also expressed concern about the ineffectiveness of short prison sentences, including NAPO (the Trade Union and Professional Association for Family Court and Probation Staff) and the Howard League for Penal Reform. Following the new coalition government and Kenneth Clarke's appointment as the Justice Secretary, a full review of sentencing and rehabilitation policy was promised (Hansard, 2010) leading to the publication of a green paper entitled Breaking the cycle: Effective punishment, rehabilitation and sentencing of offenders in December 2010 (Ministry of Justice, 2010a). It is within this context that this research sought to give further consideration to the reality of short term imprisonment from the perspective of both prisoners and prison staff. In May 2010 the Howard League for Penal Reform, in collaboration with the PGA, commissioned a piece of research to consider the reality of short term imprisonment from the perspective of prisoners, prison staff and prison governors. The research was interested to explore three key research questions: - What are the day-to-day experiences and views of male prisoners serving short term prison sentences of 12 months and under? - What are the views of prison staff working with male prisoners serving short term prison sentences of 12 months and under? - What are the views of PGA members and other key stakeholders regarding short term prison sentences of 12 months and under? In order to explore these key questions the study relied on a number of interlinked investigations. These were: - an interview survey of short sentence prisoners; - an interview survey of prison staff; - an electronic questionnaire survey of PGA members; and, - an electronic questionnaire survey of other key stakeholders. This research was conducted with prisoners and prison staff in three male prisons in one National Offender Management Service (NOMS) region. The three study sites were selected on the basis that they all held male prisoners serving prison sentences of 12 months and under. At each site fieldwork was completed by an independent academic and a small team of retired prison governors. Interviews ranged from between 30 and 60 minutes. A total of 44 interviews with short sentence prisoners and twenty-five with prison staff were conducted. This report presents the findings of the interview surveys with short sentence prisoners and prison staff only. The findings from the electronic questionnaire surveys of PGA members and other key stakeholders will be reported elsewhere. Details: London: Howard League for Penal Reform, 2011. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 19, 2015 at: https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Publications/No_Winners.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://d19ylpo4aovc7m.cloudfront.net/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Publications/No_Winners.pdf Shelf Number: 134973 Keywords: InmatesPrisonersPunishmentSentencing (U.K.)Sentencing ReformShort Term Imprisonment |
Author: Galik, Lauren Title: Smart on Sentencing, Smart on Crime: An Argument for Reforming Louisiana's Determinate Sentencing Laws Summary: Over the past several decades, Louisiana legislators have passed a number of determinate sentencing laws aimed at reducing crime and incapacitating certain types of offenders. Because these laws have been disproportionately applied to nonviolent crimes, nonviolent offenders now account for the majority of inmates and admissions to prison in the state. This has produced a number of unfortunate consequences, such as an increase in the state's prison population from 21,007 in 1992 to 39,709 in 2011 and a $315 million increase in correction expenditures during the same time period, from $442.3 million (in 2011 dollars) in 1992 to $757.4 million in 2011. Meanwhile, there is little evidence that the laws have done anything to reduce Louisiana's violent crime rate, which remains considerably above both the national average and the rates in its neighboring states. Today, Louisiana has the highest incarceration rate in the country, with 868 of every 100,000 of its citizens in prison. Louisiana's citizens could benefit considerably from changes to the way in which convicted criminals are sentenced. As things stand, nonviolent offenders who pose little or no threat to society are routinely sentenced to long terms in prison with no opportunity for parole, probation or suspension of sentence. In most cases, this is a direct result of the state's determinate sentencing laws. These prisoners consume disproportionate amounts of Louisiana's scarce correctional resources, which could be better utilized to ensure that violent criminals are more effectively kept behind bars. Among the more serious problems with Louisiana's determinate sentencing laws are: - A large number of crimes that carry mandatory minimum prison sentences in Louisiana are drug-related and nonviolent in nature. Indeed, numerous violent crimes, such as negligent homicide, manslaughter, aggravated assault with a firearm, aggravated battery, simple rape and simple kidnapping carry no mandatory minimum sentences at all. - Mandatory minimum sentences eliminate judicial discretion over sentencing by prohibiting judges from taking into account factors specific to the crime or offender when determining the sentence. - Mandatory minimum sentences create arbitrary outcomes by drawing essentially trivial lines between degrees of criminal activity that can result in dramatic differences in punishment. This happens most commonly with sentences for drug crimes, where different weights or quantities of drugs carry varying degrees of punishment. For example, possession of 199.9 grams of cocaine carries a mandatory minimum sentence of five years of hard labor in prison and a $50,000 fine. However, possession of 200 grams of cocaine carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years of hard labor in prison and a $100,000 fine-double the punishment for a negligible 0.1 gram more of cocaine. Other states have gone further. In Maine, legislators passed safety valve provisions that allow judges to depart below mandatory minimum sentences in certain instances. In Rhode Island, legislators repealed mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenses. These reforms have allowed Maine and Rhode Island to save prison space and resources for criminals who pose a real threat to society, while reducing corrections costs. Louisiana could benefit from similar changes to sentencing policy. Details: Los Angeles: Reason Foundation, 2013. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Study 425: Accessed April 8, 2015 at: http://reason.org/files/louisiana_sentencing_reform.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://reason.org/files/louisiana_sentencing_reform.pdf Shelf Number: 135182 Keywords: Costs of Criminal JusticeDeterminate SentencingImprisonment, Economic Aspects ofPunishmentSentencing (Louisiana)Sentencing Reform |
Author: Council of State Governments. Justice Center Title: Justice Reinvestment in Washington: Analysis and Policy Framework Summary: Washington has the highest reported property crime rate in the nation. People convicted of property offenses have a high likelihood of committing a new crime, yet Washington is the only state in the country where supervision is not available as a sentence for most people convicted of property offenses, despite the significant impact supervision can have on reducing the likelihood of reoffending. In addition, the state's prison population is projected to grow by 6 percent over the next 10 years, from 17,502 in FY2014 to 18,542 by FY2024, in part, due to an increasing number of repeat property offenders being sentenced to prison for long lengths of stay. In 2014, the CSG Justice Center was asked to analyze Washington's criminal justice data, interview stakeholders from across the criminal justice system, and work with state leaders to develop data-driven policy options designed to reduce spending on corrections and increase public safety. Among other things, Washington's Justice Reinvestment Policy Framework would: - Adopt a new sentencing grid for felony property offenses that mandates a period of supervision and, if needed, treatment for people convicted of less serious property offenses; - Fund local law enforcement efforts to deter property crime; - Create a fund to provide financial assistance to victims of property crime; and - Incentivize counties to improve pretrial practices. The Justice Reinvestment Policy Framework would help the state avoid up to $291 million in prison construction and operating costs that would otherwise be needed to accommodate the growth that was forecast to occur by FY2024. To achieve these outcomes, the state would need to reinvest $90 million by FY2021 in law enforcement grants, supervision and treatment, support for counties, and financial assistance for victims of property crime. Through improvements to the criminal justice system, this policy framework establishes a goal of reducing the property crime rate by 15 percent by FY2021, deterring crime, and reducing recidivism. The Justice Reinvestment Policy Framework will be considered by the legislature during the 2015 session. Details: New York: Council of State Governments, 2015. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2015 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/JusticeReinvestmentinWashington.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/JusticeReinvestmentinWashington.pdf Shelf Number: 135914 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeCriminal Justice ReformCriminal Justice systemsJustice ReinvestmentProperty CrimesSentencing Reform |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Community Correction Orders Second Monitoring Report. (Pre-Guideline Judgment) Summary: The community correction order (CCO) is a recently created and important sentencing option for Victorian criminal courts. The CCO allows courts to combine a range of punitive and therapeutic conditions in a sentence that an offender serves in the community. With the recent abolition of suspended sentences of imprisonment in Victoria, the CCO is now, for some offending, the only alternative sentence to imprisonment. This report examines changes in the use of CCOs, and sentencing practices more generally, by Victorian courts during the period from January 2012 to December 2014. One of the aims of this report is to assess the effects on sentencing practices of major sentencing reforms, including the phase-out of suspended sentences and the changes adopted in September 2014 to the way CCOs may be combined with sentences of imprisonment. This report does not assess the effects on sentencing practices of the Court of Appeal's guideline judgment, which was issued at the end of this report's reference period. The guideline judgment will be the subject of future research by the Sentencing Advisory Council (the 'Council'). Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2015. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2015 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20Second%20Monitoring%20Report.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Community%20Correction%20Orders%20Second%20Monitoring%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 136859 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity SentencesCommunity-Based CorrectionsSentencing Reform |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: Changes to Sentencing Practice: Young Adult Offenders Summary: Changes to Sentencing Practice examines the effect on young adult offenders of recent changes to sentencing options in Victoria. In particular, the analysis shows an increase in the use of the community correction order, a sentencing option introduced in Victoria in 2012. This report examines the extent to which recent changes to intermediate sentencing options in Victoria have influenced sentencing practices for young adult offenders (18 years or over and under 21 years at the time of sentencing) in Victoria. This group of offenders is a subset of the group of offenders aged under 21 that are defined as 'young offenders', by section 3 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic). The analysis examines the longitudinal trends for sentencing for this age group in two ways. First, the variations in the number of young adult offenders sentenced are considered. Second, the differences in the sentencing outcomes for those offenders are explored. This report demonstrates that there has been a large decline in the number of young adult offenders sentenced in Victoria in recent years. The analysis also demonstrates that, for young adult offenders who are sentenced, there has been a notable increase in the use of the recently introduced community correction order (CCO). The report concludes by discussing some possible reasons for these trends and outlining directions for future research. Details: Melbourne: Sentencing Advisory Council, 2015. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 5, 2015 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Changes%20to%20Sentencing%20Practice%20Young%20Adult%20Offenders.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/Changes%20to%20Sentencing%20Practice%20Young%20Adult%20Offenders.pdf Shelf Number: 136956 Keywords: Community Based CorrectionsSentencing ReformYoung Adult Offenders |
Author: Elderbroom, Brian Title: Assessing the Impact of South Dakota's Sentencing Reforms: Justice Reinvestment Initiative Summary: South Dakota made significant reforms to its justice system with the 2013 enactment of the Public Safety Improvement Act. This brief summarizes findings on the preliminary impact of two of these reforms: presumptive probation and felony reclassifications of drug possession and ingestion. These policies have produced positive results, but new developments threaten that success. While prison admissions and sentence lengths for affected offenses declined, the number of convictions for eligible offenses increased. These increases challenge the state's progress toward its reform goals. This brief offers policy recommendations South Dakota should consider to build on the success of SB 70. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2016. 15p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 18, 2016 at: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000762-Assessing-the-Impact-of-South-Dakota%27s-Sentencing-Reforms-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000762-Assessing-the-Impact-of-South-Dakota%27s-Sentencing-Reforms-Justice-Reinvestment-Initiative.pdf Shelf Number: 139658 Keywords: Criminal Justice PoliciesCriminal Justice ReformJustice ReinvestmentSentencingSentencing Reform |
Author: Cohen, Derek Title: Texas' Mandatory Sentencing Enhancements Summary: Key Points - Sentencing enhancements have been part of American jurisprudence for decades. - However, no studies have routinely shown benefit to public safety attributable to these enhancements. - Further, these enhancements have the chance of ensnaring low-level nonviolent felons for sentences that far outweigh the crime Details: Austin: Texas Public Policy Foundation, Center for Effective Justice, 2016. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 12, 2016 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/Texas-Mandatory-Sentencing-Enhancements.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/Texas-Mandatory-Sentencing-Enhancements.pdf Shelf Number: 146692 Keywords: Mandatory SentencingSentencingSentencing Reform |
Author: Oregon. Task Force on Public Safety Title: Justice Reinvestment Report to the Legislature Summary: In July 2013, the Oregon Legislature passed House Bill 3194, known as the Justice Reinvestment Act, in response to a nearly 50% increase in Oregon's rate of incarceration between 2000 and 2010. Justice Reinvestment is an approach to spending resources more effectively with the goals of decreasing prison use, reducing recidivism, increasing public safety and holding offenders accountable. This approach can only continue to work as long as it is fully funded. The program depends on certainty of funds for county Justice Reinvestment programs to continue to operate. If Justice Reinvestment is not adequately funded there will be immediate prison bed costs far in excess of the cost of funding the program. HB 3194 created the Justice Reinvestment Grant Programs and included several sentencing changes. This bill also created the Task Force on Public Safety with the purpose of reviewing the implementation of the bill. The Task Force must submit a report to the Legislative Assembly by October 1, 2016 that describes their findings. The Criminal Justice Commission (CJC) staffs the Task Force and tracks prison bed savings from the sentencing changes in HB 3194, county prison use for related Property, Drug and Driving crimes, recidivism and the male and female prison forecasts. This report includes legislative recommendations and topics for further consideration by the Task Force and summarizes the implementation of several key areas in the bill, including sentencing changes, the Justice Reinvestment Grant Program and the Center for Policing Excellence. Details: Salem, OR: The Task Force, 2016. 56p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed December 14, 2016 at: http://www.oregon.gov/cjc/Documents/TaskForceonPublicSafetyJusticeReinvestmentReporttotheLegislature.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.oregon.gov/cjc/Documents/TaskForceonPublicSafetyJusticeReinvestmentReporttotheLegislature.pdf Shelf Number: 144884 Keywords: Costs of CorrectionsCosts of Criminal JusticeJustice ReinvestmentSentencing Reform |
Author: Allen, Rob Title: The Sentencing Council of England and Wales: brake or accelerator on the use of prison? Summary: Prisons in England and Wales are facing a major crisis, with serious questions being raised about whether they can accommodate the current population safely, let alone help to reduce re-offending. Ten years ago, the Sentencing Council was conceived as a way of helping to control the growth of prison numbers. But, by the time it started work in 2010, its objectives were limited to making sentencing more effective, predictable and consistent. While prison numbers have been fairly stable over the last six years, this is mainly due to large falls in the numbers appearing in court. Those that do are more likely to go to prison, and to stay there longer. Most of the Council's work has involved the production of guidelines which require courts to take a step by step approach to sentencing, starting at the same point, and taking into account the same kinds of factors in assessing the seriousness of a particular offence. Despite some reluctance on the part of judges and magistrates, guidelines are widely accepted – unsurprisingly given the considerable range of discretion that still exists, and the courts’ ability to sentence outside the guidelines if it is in the interest of justice to do so. Guidelines have sought to reflect the existing practice of the courts, rather than recalibrate sentencing levels based on effectiveness and cost. However, in the case of assaults and burglary (the guidelines whose impact the Council has evaluated), sentence levels have risen more than anticipated. This may not have been solely a result of the guidelines, but concerns have been expressed that the Council has not done enough to challenge increasing sentence lengths, or to give more explicit assistance to courts in determining when offences are so serious that only prison will do. While the Council may have helped to make sentencing more transparent, consistent and proportionate, it has neglected its' potential to curb the ineffective use of imprisonment, adopting a narrow focus to its work. We recommend that both the membership of the Council, and its range of responsibilities, are widened. On the one hand, it could use its current remit to issue guidelines on a wider range of common issues facing sentencers, such as the weight to be attached to previous convictions, and the challenges involved in sentencing women, young adults or people with mental health problems. On the other, its mandate could be extended so that it advises more broadly on sentencing policy, projects prison numbers, and uses its guidelines to keep them in line with available prison places. In the late 2000s the government backtracked on explicitly linking sentencing levels with available resources, but now could be the time to revisit the issue. Prisons are in crisis now as then, and the increasing length of sentences is one of the causes. The Council could play a key role in reducing this population crisis. Details: London: Transform Justice, 2016. 32p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 26, 2017 at: http://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/TJ-DEC-8.12.16-1.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.transformjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/TJ-DEC-8.12.16-1.pdf Shelf Number: 145430 Keywords: SentencingSentencing GuidelinesSentencing Reform |
Author: Tasmania. Department of Justice, Sentencing Advisory Council. Title: Phasing out Suspended Sentences Summary: The paper examines Tasmania's current use of suspended sentences. It then examines how to phase out suspended sentences in Tasmania and makes 55 recommendations concerning the approach to phasing out suspended sentences. Details: Hobart: The Sentencing Advisory Council, 2015. 168p. Source: Internet Resource: Consultation Paper: Accessed March 3, 2017 at: http://www.sentencingcouncil.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/342321/Phasing_out_Suspended_Sentences_report_final_for_Web2.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Australia URL: http://www.sentencingcouncil.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/342321/Phasing_out_Suspended_Sentences_report_final_for_Web2.pdf Shelf Number: 141305 Keywords: SentencingSentencing ReformSuspended Sentences |
Author: Grawert, Ames C. Title: A Federal Agenda to Reduce Mass Incarceration Summary: This report sets forth an affirmative agenda to end mass incarceration and reform our criminal justice system. Bipartisan momentum has been growing for years. We must keep it going. The United States has less than five percent of the world's population, but nearly one quarter of its prisoners. Mass incarceration contributes significantly to the American poverty rate. Conservatives, progressives, and law enforcement leaders now agree that the country must reduce its prison population, and that it can do so without jeopardizing public safety. In the last decade, 27 states have led the way, cutting crime and imprisonment together. Of course, because 87 percent of prisoners are housed in state facilities, changes to state and local law are necessary. But history proves that decisions made in Washington affect the whole criminal justice system, for better or worse. Federal funding drives state policy, and helped create our current crisis of mass incarceration. And the federal government sets the national tone, which is critical to increasing public support and national momentum for change. Without a strong national movement, the bold reforms needed at the state and local level cannot emerge. In a divisive political environment, it is tempting to assume that progress toward federal reform is impossible. But even today, the need to confront problems in the way we arrest, prosecute, and incarcerate remains a rare point of trans-partisan agreement. Republican and Democratic Congressional leaders alike acknowledge that unnecessarily long federal prison sentences continue to impede rehabilitation, driving recidivism and economic inequality. And according to a new poll from the Charles Koch Institute, 81 percent of Trump voters believe criminal justice reform is a "very important" or "somewhat important" issue. More than half know someone who is in or has been to prison. Even with broad public support, addressing the problems in our criminal justice system will not be easy. For the last eight years, the White House and Justice Department supported this important work. But Attorney General Jeff Sessions appears opposed to efforts to reduce unnecessarily harsh charging and sentencing. While President Donald Trump's own views remain unclear, key advisers such as Vice President Mike Pence, senior adviser Jared Kushner, and Gov. Chris Christie all support efforts to reduce imprisonment. To help bridge that divide, this report offers solutions that would keep crime rates low and show support for law enforcement, while reducing mass incarceration. The strongest of these policies require congressional action. Others could be implemented by a sympathetic administration. Taken together, these policies form the core of a national agenda for federal leaders to make our country safer and fairer. They also serve as models for state and local action. Legislation End the Federal Subsidization of Mass Incarceration: Federal grants help shape criminal justice policy at the state and local levels. For decades, these grants have subsidized the growth of incarceration. For example, the 1994 Crime Bill offered states $9 billion in funding to build more prisons. Today, $8.4 billion in federal criminal justice grants flow from Washington annually, largely on autopilot, encouraging more arrests, prosecution, and incarceration. To bring accountability to this flow, Congress can pass a "Reverse Mass Incarceration Act" that would dedicate $20 billion over 10 years to states that reduce both crime and incarceration. This would spur state and local action across the country. End Federal Incarceration for Lower-Level Crimes: Our criminal justice system relies heavily on prison, using it as the default punishment for most crimes. But research has shown that unnecessary incarceration is costly and ineffective at preventing recidivism and promoting rehabilitation. Early estimates show that approximately 49 percent of the federal prison population is likely incarcerated without an adequate public safety reason. Congress can pass legislation to eliminate prison terms for lower-level offenses and shorten prison terms for other crimes. In doing so, it can safely, significantly cut the prison population, saving around $28 billion over 10 years, enough to fund a Reverse Mass Incarceration Act. Institute a Police Corps Program to Modernize Law Enforcement: The country faces a national crisis in policing. Some believe that overly-zealous enforcement has reached a breaking point. Others believe police are not adequately funded or supported. All can agree that something needs to change. To advance a twenty-first century police force, Congress can allocate $40 billion over five years to recruit new officers and train them in modern policing tactics focused on crime prevention, as well as techniques to reduce unnecessary arrests, uses of force, and incarceration. Enact Sentencing Reform: While lawmakers should aspire to the bold changes to federal sentencing described above, Congress can start with a milder first step: reintroducing and passing the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2015. This proposal would cautiously reduce prison sentences for some nonviolent crimes. A bipartisan group of senators, led by Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), have already committed to reintroducing the bill this session. The White House has expressed cautious support. Executive Action Redirect Federal Grants Away from Mass Incarceration: Since many of the harmful incentives in federal criminal justice grants are written into law, truly ending the federal subsidization of mass incarceration will take congressional action, as laid out above. But the Justice Department can take the first step, by changing performance measures for grants to reward states that use federal funds to reduce both crime and incarceration. Institute New Goals for Federal Prosecutors: The Justice Department should ensure that scarce federal criminal justice resources are focused on the most serious crimes, and evaluate U.S. Attorneys nationally based on their ability to decrease both crime and incarceration. Commute Sentences to Retroactively Apply the Fair Sentencing Act: In 2010, Republicans and Democrats joined together to pass legislation to reduce the disparity between crack and powder cocaine crimes as the drugs are scientifically equivalent. But more than 4,000 federal prisoners remain incarcerated under outdated drug laws. Future presidents can bring justice to these prisoners by identifying clemency petitions meeting certain criteria, fast-tracking them for review, and granting clemency. Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2017. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 20, 2017 at: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law Shelf Number: 146308 Keywords: Criminal Justice ReformMass IncarcerationPrison ReformSentencing Reform |
Author: Stanford Law School. Three Strikes Project Title: Progress Report: Three Strikes Reform (Proposition 36): 1,000 Prisoners Released Summary: California is in the midst of a prison crisis. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that California prisons are unconstitutionally overcrowded. As a result, the State must reduce its prison population by thousands of inmates by the end of the year. Despite multiple federal court orders, the State refuses to release prisoners, arguing that doing so will compromise public safety. At the same time, counties throughout California have been implementing the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 ("Proposition 36"), which voters overwhelmingly approved in November. Proposition 36 shortens the sentences of prisoners who are serving life terms for non-serious, non-violent crimes and who no longer pose a threat to public safety To date, over 1,000 prisoners have been released from custody under Proposition 36, according to data provided by the California Department of Corrections. Each of these prisoners had been sentenced to life under the Three Strikes law for a minor crime, such as petty theft or simple drug possession, and demonstrated to a judge that they are not an "unreasonable risk of danger to public safety," under new procedures established by Proposition 36. (See new Penal Code Section 1170.126.) So far, judges have found that the vast majority of inmates eligible for relief under Proposition 36 deserve shorter sentences and have granted these inmates early release. Over 2,000 additional prisoners who are eligible for relief under Proposition 36 are still waiting to have their cases reviewed in county courts. In Los Angeles County alone, over 800 cases of inmates eligible for relief under Proposition 36 have yet to be resolved. The recidivism rate of prisoners released under Proposition 36 to date is well below state and national averages. Fewer than 2 percent of the prisoners released under Proposition 36 have been charged with new crimes, according to state and county records. By comparison, the average recidivism rate over a similar time period for non-Proposition 36 inmates leaving California prisons is 16 percent. Nationwide, 30 percent of inmates released from state prisons are arrested for a new crime within six months of release. Critical issues remain. Prisoners released under Proposition 36 are returning home to a dire lack of resources. Unlike all other prisoners released from California prisons, inmates released under Proposition 36 are not eligible for state and county support services, leaving them without housing, jobs, or drug treatment. In many cases, prisoners freed under Proposition 36 are released from custody without warning, clothing, money for transportation, or notice to their families or attorneys. A disproportionate number of inmates sentenced to life in prison for petty offenses suffer from mild to severe mental illness. While all inmates released under Proposition 36 should have access to support services, it is especially vital that mentally ill inmates, who are particularly vulnerable, have access to a level of care that adequately addresses their needs. In the cases pending review under Proposition 36, administrative and procedural obstacles are preventing timely dispositions. In some counties, lack of prosecutorial resources has significantly slowed the process. In other counties, public defender offices have been deprived adequate means to investigate and prepare these cases. Proposition 36 has already generated significant financial savings and freed prison capacity for dangerous and violent prisoners. Since the law took effect in November 2012, Proposition 36 has saved the California prison system between $10 and $13 million. If courts fully implemented the initiative by reducing the sentences of all eligible inmates, the State would realize almost $1 billion in savings over the next ten years. In light of the federal court order to reduce the prison population, the overwhelming public support for Proposition 36, and the success of those inmates who have already been released under the initiative, this report makes the following recommendations: - The State should commit more resources to expedite review and end unnecessary delay of over 2,000 cases currently pending under Proposition 36. Prosecutors must have adequate resources to expeditiously review petitions and recommend new sentences in appropriate cases without compromising public safety; and defense counsel must be given comparable resources to thoroughly investigate cases and prepare comprehensive reentry plans for their clients to maintain the low recidivism rate of inmates released under the initiative. - Courts should ensure consistent application of Proposition 36 throughout the state. Uniform standards of review and procedural protections should be implemented to provide accurate assessments of inmate risk. - More public and private resources should be committed to provide services to inmates released under Proposition 36 to ensure their successful reentry into the community. Every prisoner released under Proposition 36 should have access to temporary housing, sobriety support, and employment assistance services equal to those services provided to all other inmates leaving prison. Details: Stanford, CA: The Project, 2013. 12 p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2017 at: https://law.stanford.edu/index.php?webauth-document=child-page/441702/doc/slspublic/Three%20Strikes%20Reform%20Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://law.stanford.edu/index.php?webauth-document=child-page/441702/doc/slspublic/Three%20Strikes%20Reform%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 130015 Keywords: Prison Overcrowding Proposition 36 Sentencing Sentencing ReformThree-Strikes Law |
Author: Piehl, Anne Morrison Title: Putting Time Limits on the Punitiveness of the Criminal Justice System Summary: Over the past 30 years, both the incarcerated population and the limitations placed on those with criminal records have dramatically expanded. The consequences of a criminal conviction can last long beyond any imposed sentence, but current efforts to reduce the punitiveness of the criminal justice system tend to focus on sentencing reform rather than consequences for those who have already served prison terms. I offer three principles for reform efforts aimed at reducing criminal justice punitiveness. First, negative consequences of prior criminal convictions should be targeted to enhance public safety. Second, processes for time-limiting information about convictions should be implemented. Finally, decreases in the severity of criminal punishment should generally be automatically and retroactively applied. Reform efforts that follow these principles can better target society's resources toward people with the highest risk of offending. Details: Washington, DC: Brookings Institute, Hamilton Project, 2016. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Memo 2016-03: Accessed September 14, 2017 at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/es_20161021_reducing_punitiveness_piehl.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/es_20161021_reducing_punitiveness_piehl.pdf Shelf Number: 147239 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformPunishmentSentencing Reform |
Author: Victoria. Sentencing Advisory Council Title: A Sentencing Guidelines Council for Victoria; Issues Paper Summary: A Sentencing Guidelines Council for Victoria: Issues Paper is designed to assist with community consultation on the creation of a Victorian sentencing guidelines council. It considers the purposes, composition and functions of such a council. It also examines what sentencing guidelines might look like in the Victorian context and the potential effect of the guidelines. Details: Melbourne: The Council, 2017. 96p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2017 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/A_Sentencing_Guidelines_Council_for_Victoria_Issues_Paper.pdf Year: 2017 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/A_Sentencing_Guidelines_Council_for_Victoria_Issues_Paper.pdf Shelf Number: 148192 Keywords: Punishment Sentencing Guidelines Sentencing Reform |
Author: Eisen, Lauren-Brooke Title: Criminal Justice: An Election Agenda for Candidates, Activists, and Legislators Summary: This report sets forth an affirmative agenda to end mass incarceration in America. The task requires efforts from both federal and state lawmakers. Today, criminal justice reform stands on a knife's edge. After decades of rising incarceration and ever more obvious consequences, a powerful bipartisan movement has emerged. It recognizes that harsh prison policies are not needed to keep our country safe. Now that extraordinary bipartisan consensus is challenged by the Trump administration, through inflammatory rhetoric and unwise action. Only an affirmative move to continue reform can keep the progress going. The United States has less than five percent of the world's population, but nearly one quarter of its prisoners. About 2.1 million people are incarcerated in this country, the vast majority in state and local facilities. Mass incarceration contributes significantly to the poverty rate. It is inequitable, placing a disproportionate burden on communities of color. It is wildly expensive, in some cases costing more to keep an 18-year-old in prison than it would to send him to Harvard. Our criminal justice system costs $270 billion annually, yet does not produce commensurate public safety benefits. Research conclusively shows that high levels of imprisonment are simply not necessary to protect communities. About four out of every ten prisoners are incarcerated with little public safety justification. In fact, 27 states have reduced both imprisonment and crime in the last decade. A group of over 200 police chiefs, prosecutors, and sheriffs has formed, whose founding principles state: "We do not believe that public safety is served by a return to tactics that are overly punitive without strong purpose . . . we cannot incarcerate our way to safety." In cities, states, and at the federal level, Republicans and Democrats have joined this effort. They recognize that today's public safety challenges demand new and innovative politics rooted in science and based on what works. The opioid epidemic, mass shootings, and cyber-crime all require modern responses that do not repeat mistakes of the past. Crime is no longer a wedge issue, and voters desire reform. A 2017 poll from the Charles Koch Institute reveals that 81 percent of Trump voters consider criminal justice reform important. Another, from Republican pollster Robert Blizzard, finds that 87 percent of Americans agree that nonviolent offenders should be sanctioned with alternatives to incarceration. And according to a 2017 ACLU poll, 71 percent of Americans support reducing the prison population - including 50 percent of Trump voters. But the politician with the loudest megaphone has chosen a different, destructive approach. Donald Trump, and his Attorney General Jeff Sessions, falsely insist there is a national crime wave, portraying a country besieged by crime, drugs, and terrorism - "American carnage," as he called it in his inaugural address. But, crime in the United States remains at historic lows. While violent crime and murder did increase in 2015 and 2016, new data show crime and violence declining again in 2017. The national murder rate is approximately half of what it was at its 1991 peak. Those who seek to use fear of crime for electoral gain are not just wrong on the statistics; they are also wrong on the politics. Now, to continue the progress that has been made, it is up to candidates running for office to boldly advance policy solutions backed by facts, not fear. This report offers reforms that would keep crime low, while significantly reducing incarceration. Most solutions can be enacted through federal or state legislation. While most of the prison population is under control of state officials, federal policy matters too. The federal government's prison population is larger than that of any state. Further, Washington defines the national political conversation on criminal justice reform. And although states vary somewhat in their approach to criminal justice, they struggle with similar challenges. The state solutions in this report are broadly written as "models" that can be adapted. Steps to take include: Eliminating Financial Incentives for Incarceration Enacting Sentencing Reform Passing Sensible Marijuana Reform Improving Law Enforcement Responding to the Opioid Crisis Reducing Female Incarceration Details: New York: Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, 2018. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Solutions 2018: Accessed April 5, 2018 at: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Criminal_Justice_An_Election_Agenda_for_Candidates_Activists_and_Legislators%20.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/publications/Criminal_Justice_An_Election_Agenda_for_Candidates_Activists_and_Legislators%20.pdf Shelf Number: 149699 Keywords: Criminal Justice PolicyCriminal Justice ReformMass IncarcerationOpioid CrisisSentencing Reform |
Author: Victoria (Australia). Sentencing Advisory Council Title: A Sentencing Guidelines Council for Victoria; Report Summary: A perennial struggle within the criminal law is how to balance the need for equality, transparency and consistency with the need for individualised justice when deciding how people found guilty of crimes should be punished. On the one hand, it is a fundamental principle of the rule of law that like cases be treated alike, that justice be dispensed equally. The legitimacy of the law, especially the criminal law, is largely dependent on it being perceived as fair. This requires not only that decisions are fair in and of themselves, but also that the process by which those decisions are made is perceived as fair. Justice must not just be done; it must be seen to be done. This means that decisions must not appear arbitrary, nor can they appear to treat people differently without good reason. On the other hand, the unique circumstances of every case, and of every offender, mean that discretion is essential to the process of sentencing. Judges and magistrates are required to take into account the culpability of the offender, the harm the offender has caused to any victims and to the broader community, the particular circumstances of the offender's life and prior history, and a number of distinct (and often competing) objectives of punishment. Judges and magistrates must then determine both the type and the level of punishment that is most proportionate to the offending and that accords with numerous legislative schemes and broader principles of the common law. Sentencing is a complex and unenviable task. In Australia, the approach to sentencing known as instinctive synthesis involves courts simultaneously balancing all the relevant considerations in a case to reach an appropriate outcome. This approach preserves the court's discretion to impose a just and proportionate sentence that takes into account all the circumstances of the case. The intent of sentencing guidelines is not to remove that discretion, but rather to structure its exercise in a way that is transparent and understandable without unnecessarily tying the court's hands. Indeed, recent research in the United Kingdom suggests that sentencing guidelines have improved not only the consistency in how courts sentence offenders, but also the individualisation of those sentences. Sentencing guidelines aim to guide - not supplant - judicial decision-making. This is in stark contrast to proposals for mandatory sentencing, which curtail judicial discretion and inevitably lead to injustice. Further, the process for the development of sentencing guidelines aims to engage the broader community in the informed consideration of sentencing policy, allowing greater reflection of community standards in sentencing practices, and greater public confidence in the sentencing process. A sentencing guidelines council for Victoria represents one of the most significant changes to sentencing in Australia in recent memory. It also represents a unique opportunity to better achieve the necessary balance between consistency, transparency and discretion in sentencing, in a way not seen before in any Australian jurisdiction. Details: Melbourne: The Council, 2018. 146p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 31, 2018 at: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/A_Sentencing_Guidelines_Council_for_Victoria_Report.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Australia URL: https://www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/publication-documents/A_Sentencing_Guidelines_Council_for_Victoria_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 150417 Keywords: Punishment Sentencing Guidelines Sentencing Reform |
Author: Pew Charitable Trusts Title: South Carolina Reduced Theft Penalties While Safely Cutting Prison Population Summary: In 2010, South Carolina enacted comprehensive sentencing reforms that included a provision to increase the state's felony theft threshold-the dollar value of stolen money or goods above which prosecutors may charge a person with a felony rather than a misdemeanor-and revise penalties for certain property crimes. The state is one of 37 that changed their theft thresholds between 2000 and 2016. Felony offenses are typically punishable by a year or more in state prison, while misdemeanors can result in up to a year in a local jail, so South Carolina's changes have the effect of prioritizing costly prison space for those convicted of more serious offenses. The new policy also represents an acknowledgment by lawmakers that inflation raises the value of stolen goods and therefore has an impact on the penalties imposed. For example, in a state with a $500 threshold, stealing a bicycle worth $250 in 1985 would have led to a misdemeanor charge, but today, because of inflation, that same bicycle would be worth $5752 and stealing it would result in a felony charge, potential prison time, and the diminished employment and housing prospects, occupational licensing restrictions, and other consequences that can accompany a felony conviction. In April 2017, The Pew Charitable Trusts published a study of 30 states that had raised their felony theft thresholds between 2000 and 2012 and found that the reforms did not interrupt downward trends in property crime or larceny rates. These states reported roughly the same average decrease in crime as the 20 states that had not changed their theft laws, and threshold amounts were not correlated with property crime or larceny rates. Now, Pew has undertaken an analysis of South Carolina's change in an effort to expand on the national study by examining a broader range of outcomes, including the relationships among higher dollar thresholds, crime, and the value of stolen goods. The evaluation reinforced the earlier findings, determining that since the 2010 law was implemented-even as South Carolina has sent fewer people to prison for theft offenses, and for shorter terms-the state's property crime rate has continued to fall. Pew also found that the value of items stolen did not change, alleviating concerns that a higher threshold would lead not only to more theft but also to targeted theft of more expensive goods. This brief delves into the findings of this research and demonstrates how South Carolina's results provide further evidence that states can increase their felony theft thresholds without compromising public safety. Details: Pew Charitable Trusts: 2018. 10p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 7, 2018 at:https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/04/south-carolina-reduced-theft-penalties-while-safely-cutting-prison-population Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-briefs/2018/04/south-carolina-reduced-theft-penalties-while-safely-cutting-prison-population Shelf Number: 151439 Keywords: Prison Sentencing ReformProperty CrimeSentencing ReformStolen GoodsTheftTheft Reduction |
Author: Ministry of Justice Title: Education and Employment Strategy Summary: Our vision 1. Reoffending by those released from custody costs society around 15 billion per year - and the overwhelming majority of prisoners will be released from custody at some stage in their lives. Through effective rehabilitation we can reduce the number of victims of crime in the future. 2. Many ex-offenders have multiple problems in their lives, including troubled family relationships, drug and mental health problems, lack of suitable accommodation, low educational achievement and poor employment records. These different problems can compound one another and require a comprehensive response. 3. This strategy focuses on work, which we know is central to prisoners turning their lives around. People leaving prison who find a job are between 6 and 9 percentage points less likely to reoffend than those who do not, even when a range of other factors are taken into account. Work can provide a foundation for a different kind of life. 4. This must start with offenders themselves. Effective rehabilitation needs prisoners to engage with the opportunities in front of them, to build a different kind of life. They must be willing to commit to change, take advice, learn new skills and take opportunities to work - both during their sentence and after. Prisons cannot help people who are not willing to help themselves but they can sharpen the incentives to help set prisoners on the right path. This means: a. A sentencing plan for each prisoner that sets direction and provides something positive to aim for. b. An Offender Management system that gives each prisoner a key worker to encourage and hold them to account. c. Tough enforcement when prisoners engage in violence and disruption, affecting their own futures and those of others. d. Proportionate rewards and opportunities for those making choices that will prepare them to lead crime-free lives on release, from positive engagement in prison education to prison work. 5. For those willing to engage, the system must deliver. Our vision is that when an offender enters prison they should be put, immediately, on the path to employment on release. This means: a. Rigorous assessment of each prisoner's education level at the beginning of - and at key points during their sentence, to understand each individual's starting point and measure progress. b. Education and training which is responsive to individuals' needs, is properly integrated into prison regimes and delivers what employers are looking for. c. Prison work, provided by employers with easy access to prisons, and work placements on day release which help prisoners build towards employment opportunities on release. d. Links with local and national employers ready to offer ex-prisoners jobs on release. e. Effective supervision and support when ex-offenders leave prison, so that they make the most of job opportunities. Progress to date: 6. Progress has been made in some important aspects of this. The number of prisoners working in prison industries (prison jobs provided by private sector employers or government departments) at any one time has increased significantly, from 7,500 in 2010/11 to over 11,000 in 2016. This has boosted the number of prisoners engaged in purposeful activity and helped many more acquire key skills to prepare them for employment on release. In addition to this, there are over 13,000 prisoners working to provide prison services at any one time, such as cleaning prison wings or cooking in the kitchens. 7. Meanwhile, prison education has been improving, with an increase in the number of prisons in England rated as good or outstanding by Ofsted. In Wales ESTYN, the office of Her Majesty's Inspectorate for Education and Training in Wales, inspect prison education and the majority of prisons are rated as good. It is our ambition to see the number of prisons rated as good or outstanding for education continue to grow until that level of quality is embedded across the system. Challenges ahead: 8. The proportion of offenders in P45 employment one year after release is just 17%. The evidence indicates that there are not large differences in employment rates for male and female ex-offenders. This low employment rate contributes to higher levels of reoffending and comes at a direct cost to the welfare system. 9. Too many prisoners are still engaged in violence and disruption, rather than turning their own lives around. There were 28,000 violent incidents recorded in our prisons last year alone. Rates of violence are lower in the female estate than the male estate but are still unacceptable. We have not made sufficient use of all the tools available - to map out a path to a better future for each prisoner, bear down on bad behaviour and reward the good. A fresh look is needed at all the tools available for this. 10. Nor has the system delivered everything it should for those prisoners who do engage. Prisons have not been sufficiently geared towards getting prisoners into work on release. In particular: a. Prison education has delivered qualifications but not been tailored closely enough to the requirements of employers or the needs of different cohorts of prisoners. With large-scale contracts, governors in England have lacked the levers to manage performance and integrate education properly into prison regimes. At times in the past, training for female prisoners has been driven by stereotypes about 'suitable' employment rather than market intelligence about employment opportunities. b. Prison work has delivered purposeful activity and helped prisons function efficiently, but has not been linked sufficiently to employment opportunities on release. Workplace on Release on Temporary Licence (ROTL) has also been underused for both men and women c. On release, ex-prisoners have benefited from initiatives like Ban the Box, but many employers remain sceptical about employing ex-offenders. Employers need further encouragement and easy access to prisons to change this. Meanwhile, the supervision of, and support for, ex-prisoners on release has often been piecemeal and insufficiently coordinated. Details: United Kingdom, 2018. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 14, 2018 at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/710406/education-and-employment-strategy-2018.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/710406/education-and-employment-strategy-2018.pdf Shelf Number: 151473 Keywords: Education Offender Offender Rehabilitation Prison Education Prison Programs Prisoner Violence Prisoners Sentencing Reform |
Author: Barkow, Rachel E. Title: Life Without Parole and the Hope for Real Sentencing Reform Summary: Abstract In this chapter for a book that asks whether life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) is the new death penalty, I will explore some reasons why it is unlikely LWOP will experience the same procedural and substantive oversight that now exists for the death penalty. The chapter begins by highlighting the problem of defining LWOP in a way that will lead to meaningful reforms. If the concern with LWOP sentences is, as the Supreme Court recently suggested in Graham, that they eliminate the realistic hope of release, then other sentences such as natural life sentences where parole is just as unlikely as executive clemency of an LWOP sentence or long term-of-years sentences would seem to be equivalent. But once one recognizes that these other sentences are comparable, problems of administrability and line-drawing pose enormous obstacles to both judicial and legislative reform efforts. The next hurdle is the puzzling question of how one should limit LWOP, assuming one can define it. Although some reformers would favor outright abolition, that is exceedingly unlikely given current Supreme Court attitudes about punishment review and American politics more generally. Thus, the question becomes who should be eligible for LWOP and which categories of offenses and offenders will create enough public sympathy to generate favorable judicial decisions or legislative reform efforts. Outside of juveniles, the pool of candidates is shallow. After addressing these substantive questions of scope, the chapter turns to the likelihood of procedural reforms and explains why LWOP sentences are unlikely to get the same procedural protections as capital cases. The sheer number of such cases is the largest obstacle, but the line-drawing problems are also likely to deter courts and legislators. The Chapter also discusses an additional significant political obstacle to LWOP reform: the capital abolition movement itself. Anti-death penalty advocates have incentives to prevent LWOP from becoming the "new death penalty" in order to abolish the "old death penalty" and keep it from coming back. The success of abolition campaigns against capital punishment have depended heavily on the existence of LWOP, and it is unlikely that most abolitionists will join the battle to reform LWOP unless and until the death penalty is off the table as an option and with no risk of return. Finally, the Chapter concludes with a note of caution about focusing too much on what makes LWOP a unique punishment the path paved by the Court's "death is different" jurisprudence as opposed to emphasizing the troublesome aspects it shares with other sentences. While a majority of the Supreme Court seems to view the extinction of hope as the main problem with LWOP, that concern is in many ways a distraction. The bigger problem with LWOP is that in too many cases it is a disproportionate punishment relative to the offense or the offender. But a concern with disproportionate sentencing is hardly limited to LWOP sentences. Any term of years or sentence with or without parole can be disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment. The Court created a death is different jurisprudence to avoid facing the hard question of disproportionality outside the capital context. It appears to be on the road to doing the same thing with LWOP. That may be the easier path for the Courts docket and judicial management more generally, but it falls short of fulfilling the Constitutions mandate. Details: New York, NY: New York University School of Law, 2011. 50p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed January 18, 2019 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1848069 Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228186811_Life_Without_Parole_and_the_Hope_for_Real_Sentencing_Reform Shelf Number: 154265 Keywords: Capital Cases Death Penalty Eighth Amendment Life Without the Possibility of Parole (LWOP) Long-Term Sentencing Procedural Oversight Sentencing Sentencing Reform |
Author: Community Justice Scotland Title: Sentenced to Smart Justice: A Report on Proposed Extension of the Presumption Against Short Sentences Summary: In 2018, Community Justice Scotland commissioned research to explore potential impacts of an extension to the Presumption Against Short Sentences from 3 to 12 months. This research compares the needs experienced by people given a community sentence and people given a custodial sentence of 12 months or under. Details: Edinburgh, Scotland: Community Justice Scotland, 2019. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2019 at: https://communityjustice.scot/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Sentenced-to-Smart-Justice-A-report-on-the-proposed-extension-of-the-Presumption-Against-Short-Sentences-v7.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://communityjustice.scot/research/sentenced-to-smart-justice-a-report-on-the-proposed-extension-of-the-presumption-against-short-sentences/ Shelf Number: 156097 Keywords: Community Justice Community Sentence Custodial Sentencing Scotland Sentencing Reform |