State Sentencing by 3J6W2pqN

VIEWS: 6 PAGES: 15

									State Sentencing
Policy Roundup
      Carl Reynolds
 Director, Office of Court
Administration, Austin Texas
I.          Perspectives on State Sentencing
       a)     Sentencing Commission
       b)     Correctional Agency
       c)     State Court Administration

II.         NCSC Sentencing Reform project
       a)     Survey of State Court Leadership
       b)     Public Sentencing Attitudes Survey
       c)     Ten Policy Initiatives to Reduce Recidivism

III.        Other National Efforts
       a)     Council of State Governments Reentry & Justice Reinvestment
       b)     American Law Institute
       c)     Vera Institute
Sentencing Commission Perspective
• Texas Punishment Standards Commission,
  1991-1993
• Sentencing Commissions in 21 States
 Correctional Agency Perspective
• Decide where an inmate is housed.
• Credit time served in jail as directed by the court.
• Determine eligibility for parole, mandatory supervision
  (S.B. 152, 1977), discretionary mandatory supervision
  (H.B. 1433, 1995), street time credit (H.B. 1649, 2001),
  and one-year set-off if parole is denied. (S.B. 917,
  2003)
• Determine whether subject to sex offender registration
  or referral for sexually violent predatory civil
  commitment..
Court Administration Perspective
I.    Judicial Education
II.   Standard Felony Judgment Form
      http://www.courts.state.tx.us/oca/FelonyForms/index.asp
III. Judicial Council
IV. Vice Chair of the ABA Sentencing
     Committee
V. Member of the Conference of State Court
     Administrators
  NCSC Sentencing Reform Project:
  Getting Smarter about Sentencing
1. Reduce over-reliance on incarceration
2. Promote alternatives to incarceration
3. Eliminate inappropriate racial and ethnic
   disparities
4. Promote greater flexibility and judicial discretion
5. Provide greater rationality
6. Use evidence-based practices to promote public
   safety and reentry
7. Promote sentencing commissions and flexible
   guideline systems
NCSC Survey of State Court Leaders
I.   Reduce over-reliance on incarceration and
     expand use of evidence-based practices
II. Provide greater rationality and eliminate
     inappropriate racial and ethnic disparities
III. Promote greater judicial discretion (including
     repeal of mandatory sentences) and use of
     sentencing commission and guideline systems
     I. States split on importance of repeal
     II. Sentencing commissions: “least important”
 NCSC Sentencing Attitudes Survey:
 Top Priority for Dealing with Crime
PREVENTION, like youth education
  programs                                        36%
                                                   37%

REHABILITATION, like job training           22%
  and education for offenders            17%
                                                         Current
PUNISHMENT, like longer                   19%            2001
  sentences and more prisons               20%

ENFORCEMENT, like more police
                                           20%
  on the streets
                                          19%

                                    0%   20%      40%
   Public’s Top Sentencing Reform
              Priorities
             Percent who say each goal is "very
                        important"



  Make sure punishment fits the crime                                    81%

Keep violent offenders in prison longer                             72%

Ensure fairness/equality for all groups                            69%
     Put more non violent offenders in                          61%
         treatment/job programs
             Reduce prison population                  38%

                                      0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Preferred role for judges in efforts to
        improve sentencing

                         Big, not leading, role
                                 47%
    No role
    9%



    Small role
    22%                  Leading role
                         19%
   Evidence Based Practices & State
Sentencing Policy: Ten Policy Initiatives
1. Target Risk /Recidivism Reduction
2. Ensure Sentencing Flexibility for Risk
   Reduction Strategies
3. Use Valid Risk Assessments in Sentencing
4. Data-Driven Sentencing
5. Effective Community Corrections
   Evidence Based Practices & State
Sentencing Policy: Ten Policy Initiatives
6. Community-Based Intermediate Sanctions
7. Sentencing Data
8. Judicial Education on Evidenced Based
    Practices
9. Revise Sentencing Processes to Support Risk
    Reduction Strategies
10. Local Collaboration
      CSG Justice Reinvestment
• Predicament
  – Mounting fiscal pressure on state budgets coupled with growing
    prison populations
  – Increasing numbers of admissions to prison are violators of
    probation / parole
  – Weakening community supervision and community supports
• Concept
  – Save money by managing growth of corrections system
  – Increase public safety by using a portion of the savings generated
    to strengthen community supervision and build community
    capacity to receive offenders released from prison
      American Law Institute
    Model Penal Code: Sentencing

• Texas Advisors and Members Consultative
  Group
Vera Institute State Sentencing &
      Corrections Program

								
To top