Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 11:28 pm
Time: 11:28 pm
Results for washington
4 results foundAuthor: Song, Lin Title: Preliminary Recidivism Rates: The Twin Rivers Sex Offender Treatment Program (Revised) Summary: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study is a preliminary estimate of the recidivism rates of sex offenders who have completed the Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) at the Washington State Department of Corrections' Twin Rivers Corrections Center. Estimated recidivism rates of these offenders are compared with the rates of a group of released sex offenders who did not receive sex offender treatment during incarceration. Recidivism is defined as a re-arrest for a felony offense, and is grouped into one of three categories: sex offense, violent offense, and non-violent offense. In order to be selected for the treatment program, sex offenders must meet the following four requirements: - Voluntary participation - An I.Q. of 80 or above - Admission of guilt - At least one year remaining in prison Because of these requirements, there may be significant differences between the treatment group and the comparison group that result from the selection process and are unrelated to the effects of the SOTP. Details: S.L., 1994. 9p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2019 at: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1167/Wsipp_Preliminary-Recidivism-Rates-The-Twin-Rivers-Sex-Offender-Treatment-Program-Revised_Full-Report.pdf Year: 1994 Country: United States URL: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1167/Wsipp_Preliminary-Recidivism-Rates-The-Twin-Rivers-Sex-Offender-Treatment-Program-Revised_Full-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 154294 Keywords: Department of CorrectionsNon-Violent OffenseRecidivism RatesSex Offender Treatment ProgramSex OffendersSex OffenseViolent OffensesWashington |
Author: Song, Lin Title: Washington State Sex Offenders: Overview of Recidivism Studies Summary: Introduction Some convicted offenders reoffend after they return to the community - this reoffense behavior is known as recidivism. The percentage of offenders who reoffend within a specified time period is described as the recidivism rate. State policymakers have expressed interest in knowing the recidivism rates of Washington State sex offenders. Information on these rates can guide policy decisions on issues such as sentence length, terms of supervision, and treatment options. In 1990, the legislature directed the Washington State Institute for Public Policy to study the effectiveness of the Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSA). Legislators wanted to know if this treatment option - which allows judges to order community treatment for eligible sex offenders - compromised public safety. In 1991, the Institute reported on sex offenders who received or were statutorily eligible for SSOSA from January 1985 through June 1986. The report concluded that SSOSA is an effective sentencing alternative for eligible sex offenders because: - The community is at no greater risk, - Criminal justice professionals and treatment providers support the alternative, and - Costs to state government are presumed to be lower. Following this research, legislators inquired about the recidivism patterns of sex offenders who are not eligible for SSOSA - rapists and repeat child molesters - and requested more information on the effectiveness of treatment. Details: Olympia, Washington: Washington State Institution for Public Policy, 1995. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2019 at: https://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1188/Wsipp_Washington-State-Sex-Offenders-Overview-of-Recidivism-Studies_Full-Report.pdf Year: 1995 Country: United States URL: https://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/1188/Wsipp_Washington-State-Sex-Offenders-Overview-of-Recidivism-Studies_Full-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 154295 Keywords: Recidivism Reoffend Sex Offender Sex Offense Special Sex Offender Sentencing Alternative (SSOSAWashington |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Title: The Unfulfilled Promise of Gideon: Washington's Flawed System of Defense for the Poor Summary: Executive Summary Fundamental to a criminal justice system that is fair to all is the right of a person accused of a crime to be assisted by a competent attorney. Embodied in the Bill of Rights, this principle was affirmed 40 years ago in the landmark case Gideon v. Wainwright. The Supreme Court ruled that criminal defendants who are too poor to afford an attorney must be provided one by the state – a ruling celebrated by author Anthony Lewis in his classic book Gideon's Trumpet. Each state eventually established a system to provide attorneys to indigent persons accused of a crime. Later, the Supreme Court went one step further when it ruled in Strickland v. Washington that the Sixth Amendment right to counsel required more than simply appointing an attorney. The Court found that the safeguards guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment require that the state provide poor defendants with effective assistance of counsel. Criminal defense lawyers play a crucial and honored role in our justice system by ensuring that every person - rich or poor, guilty or innocent - receives the full protection of the law before being convicted of a crime. Unfortunately, across the country and in Washington, persons who are indigent and who are accused of a crime are frequently deprived of effective representation. In Washington, public defense services are handled at the city and county level, but the State of Washington is obligated to ensure that these legal services meet basic constitutional standards. In 1989, the Washington legislature passed legislation requiring local governments to adopt standards for the delivery of indigent defense services. Fifteen years later, however, a majority of counties still have not adopted them. The lack of meaningful standards and the failure of the State to monitor indigent defense services has resulted in a checkered system of legal defense with no guarantee that a person who is both poor and accused will get a fair trial. Although indigent defense services are publicly supported with tax dollars, they are not held to the standards of accountability that are generally expected of government programs. Around the state, Gideon's trumpet, which at one time heralded the right of poor people to be assisted by counsel if charged with a crime, now blows mostly sour notes. In Grant County, state and federal courts have issued rulings in several cases that include findings of ineffective assistance of counsel. Notably, even the state bar association has taken the unusual step of recommending disbarment of two attorneys who provide the majority of indigent defense services in the county. Growing concern about the quality of indigent defense services in Washington prompted the ACLU to review county indigent defense contracts throughout the state to determine whether they incorporated the standards adopted by the Washington State Bar Association and referenced in state statute. Using the state public records law, the ACLU collected each county contract covering adult felony indigent defense services. The ACLU also requested any county ordinances or resolutions adopted by the county government addressing indigent defense standards as required under RCW 10.101.030. A review of the contracts and the relevant authorizing ordinances and resolutions confirmed that a majority of counties have not established comprehensive standards for the delivery of indigent defense services. They have failed to set up objective performance standards and meaningful oversight. By allowing this to happen, the State has failed to meet its constitutional responsibility to ensure that indigent defendants receive effective assistance of counsel. The ACLU offers the following recommendations to remedy the deficiencies in indigent defense services in Washington. 1. The State should require counties to adopt minimum standards for the delivery of indigent defense services. The following provisions should be required in all indigent defense contracts: a. Caseload Limits: Each county must establish caseload limits that are consistent with the standards adopted by the Washington State Bar Association. b. Payment for Experts and Conflict Counsel: Each county must make provision for the payment of experts and conflict attorneys separate from the fees paid to defense attorneys. 2. The State should exercise its responsibility for overseeing the delivery of indigent defense services. The State should assign to the Office of Public Defense general oversight of county indigent defense services. 3. The State should bar renewal of indigent defense contracts with attorneys who have repeatedly failed to meet the standards adopted by the Washington State Bar Association. Details: Seattle, Washington: American Civil Liberties Union of Washington, 2004. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2019 at: https://www.aclu-wa.org/docs/unfulfilled-promise-gideon-0 Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu-wa.org/docs/unfulfilled-promise-gideon-0 Shelf Number: 155144 Keywords: Attorneys Caseload Limits Defense Attorney Defense Counsel Defense Services Gideon Indigent Defense Legal Defense Right to Counsel Washington |
Author: American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Title: Driven to Fail: The High Cost of Washington's Most Ineffective Crime - DWLS III Summary: The ACLU of Washington today issued a report examining the most commonly charged crime in the state - Driving While License Suspended - Third Degree (DWLS-III). "Driven to Fail: The High Cost of Washington's Most Ineffective Crime – DWLS III" describes the costs of enforcing this law, explores how it burdens individuals and communities, and calls for policies that address the harm of driving with a suspended license without criminalizing it. "Not every social problem needs to be treated as a crime," said Mark Cooke, the ACLU of Washington’s Campaign for Smart Justice Policy Director. "DWLS III enforcement costs taxpayers millions of dollars, yet does little to improve public safety. The crime is largely punishing people for being poor, not because they are scofflaws or dangerous drivers," said Cooke. Typically, a DWLS III charge comes about this way: A driver receives a ticket for a moving violation (such as speeding or rolling through a stop sign) and for various reasons does not follow through by paying the ticket or showing up in court to contest it. Hundreds of thousands of people in Washington have had their license suspended for not responding to a ticket for a moving violation. Those who continue to drive once their license is suspended may be arrested and charged with the crime of DWLS III. The report estimates that Washington taxpayers have spent more than $1.3 billion enforcing this crime between 1994 and 2015. These costs stem from the filing of nearly 1.5 million DWLS III criminal charges, resulting in nearly 900,000 convictions. In 2015 there were nearly 40,000 DWLS III charges filed, costing taxpayers $42,199,270. The report also shows that the law is applied unequally across the state and disproportionately impacts people of color, the young, and the poor. Steven Gaines, a young father from Chelan County, has been charged with DWLS III multiple times because of his inability to pay fines associated with tickets from moving violations. He has been forced to spend time in jail because of DWLS III charges. "I have no choice except to drive in Chelan County to get to work and to transport my children. I didn't even know my license had been suspended the first time I was charged with DWLS III, and once the fines started adding up it was incredibly hard to find the money to get my license back," said Gaines. The report recommends that the crime of DWLS III should be taken off the books. Short of that, law enforcement, prosecutors and courts can exercise their inherent discretion and treat DWLS III as a civil offense and offer relicensing programs. Civil remedies and relicensing can be more effective and use fewer criminal justice resources. The data in the report shows that some jurisdictions, such as the cities of Yakima and Seattle, have started to treat DWLS III as a non-criminal offense. Details: Seattle, Washington: American Civil Liberties Union of Washington Foundation, 2017. 24p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 21, 2019 at: https://www.aclu-wa.org/news/report-exposes-huge-costs-and-ineffectiveness-washington%E2%80%99s-most-commonly-charged-crime-driving Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.aclu-wa.org/docs/driven-fail-high-cost-washingtons-most-ineffective-crime Shelf Number: 155143 Keywords: Driving While License Suspended Fines Law Enforcement License Suspension Moving Violation Relicensing Speeding Violations Washington |