By Nicole Jones
The Vera Institute of Justice released a report on 14 states that passed significant sentencing and corrections reform in 2011 the can reduce recidivism.
The report noted three distinct themes from this year’s legislation:
sentencing
RECENT POSTS
The case for rehabilitation
Johannes Jensen
By Joaquin Palomino
Yesterday, we heard how politics have shaped California’s prison system, and about the push and pull between rehabilitation and punishment. “At the end of the day, corrections was about the bumping of heads of those people that think prison should be for punishment and those people that think that prison should be for rehabilitation,” says JB Wells, who spent almost three decades stuck between the two ideologies.
We know that in that tug of war, rehabilitation has been losing. In the last fiscal year, California spent $9.6 billion on its prison system. Just 4.6% of that went towards rehabilitation programs. In this final part of our series on sentencing in California, KALW’s Joaquin Palomino looks at changes that could reform California’s prison culture.
Will fiscal crisis and prison overcrowding spur Three Strikes reform?
As I noted last week, a new poll suggests that California voters seem open to the possibility of reforming the state’s Three Strikes Law, the 1994 “tough-on-crime” measure that allows prosecutors to seek a prison term of 25-to-life for certain third-time offenders. Californians may get their chance to vote for reform in 2012, when opponents of Three Strikes hope to introduce a ballot initiative to modify, if not fully repeal, the law.
Paul Rosynsky of the Oakland Tribune reports:
By focusing on the costs of housing long-term prisoners and on the state’s need to reduce its inmate population, opponents said they believe a ballot measure amending the law, promised for 2012, has its best chance of success since Three Strikes was enacted.
The dollars-and-cents argument, combined with long-standing arguments that Three Strikes is unfair, could finally be the right mix to beat back a strong lobby that over the years has included politicians fearful of being labeled “soft on crime,” victims advocating for longer sentences and a wealthy prison-guard union, opponents of the law said.
Any reforms to the Three Strikes Law would likely have a less dramatic immediate effect here in the Bay Area than elsewhere in the state. That’s because prosecutors have discretion to choose whether to use the law or not, and Bay Area district attorneys already use it more sparingly than their counterparts in Southern California. But, of course, the more indirect effects of Three Strikes upon prison overcrowding and the state budget equally affect voters and taxpayers statewide.
On Sentencing Commissions and Reform, Some Final Thoughts
California has recently taken a major step to reduce its prison population. Governor Brown’s realignment plan will divert low-level convicts and parole violators from the state to local counties. But even with this change, the prisons will remain overcrowded—just less so. Without sentencing reform, the jails too will soon overflow (some are already filled to the brim). One promising reform would come in the form of a
Amayzun
Without sentencing reform, many county jails will likely have serious overcrowding problems.
California Sentencing Commission with the authority to develop, implement, and monitor guidelines, but when lawmakers have proposed this reform in the past, they have faced rigid opposition. Their fellow politicians, law enforcement groups, and punitive-oriented crime victims’ groups consistently raise three primary arguments:
- Sentencing commissions are undemocratic.
- They abrogate lawmakers of their responsibility to determine criminal penalties.
- They’re stealth means for reducing (“softening”) prison terms.
To evaluate these claims, I turned to the rather extensive research on Minnesota’s experience with a sentencing commission and guidelines. I also had a conversation with Richard Frase, law professor at the University of Minnesota and one of nation’s foremost experts on sentencing commissions. Here’s what I learned: Continue reading
Sentencing Reform in the Golden State, Part 2
There is a growing consensus that California won’t solve its correctional crisis without major sentencing reform. For some, that means returning to indeterminate sentencing, but as I argued in last week’s post, this “reform” is unlikely to reduce the prison and jail populations—the crux of the crisis. That said, it’s clear that determinate sentencing hasn’t worked for California either. The incarcerated population ballooned after the state switched from discretionary to non-discretionary sentencing. In fact, according to Kevin Reitz, the University of Minnesota law professor mentioned in my last post, of the ten states with the highest prison growth from 1980 to 2009, California was the only one with determinate sentencing.
But fixed sentencing is not really the problem. The problem is that California politicians (and voters, through the ballot initiative) routinely pass laws that increase prison and jail populations without concern for finances, the availability of space to house offenders, or proportionality (whether the punishment actually fits the crime). The Golden State has a Wild-West approach to sentencing law—anything goes.
jerseygal2009
California's Wild-West approach to sentencing law is unsustainable.
There is another way. Those states with the least prison growth between 1980 and 2009 had determinate sentencing. Unlike California, however, they also had sentencing guidelines developed by a sentencing commission. The guidelines help order judges’ decisions, and the commission helps order to the sentence-making process. This is to say, the difference between California and these other states is not between determinate and indeterminate sentencing; it’s between structured determinate sentencing and (in the case of California) non-structured determinate sentencing. Continue reading
Sentencing Reform in the Golden State, Part 1
Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the phrase “sentencing reform” was taboo in Sacramento—unless, of course, “reform” meant ratcheting up prison terms. Today, though, the phrase is gradually reentering political discourse, mainly because of the state’s fiscal crisis and pressure from federal judges.
Realistic policy makers understand that the correctional population and budget won’t seriously decline and
Steve Rhodes
Governor Brown signed the legislation ending indeterminate sentencing. He now thinks he made a mistake.
stay down without significant changes to sentencing laws. After all, policies establishing long prison terms for all sorts of crimes were largely (but not solely) responsible for the incredible growth of imprisonment. But what would reform look like? In this post, I examine one possible reform—a return to indeterminate sentencing—that Governor Brown reportedly favors. Next Tuesday, I’ll explore a second possible reform, the implementation of a sentencing commission that would develop sentencing guidelines. Continue reading
Billboards are back
ACLU
Has anyone noticed the billboards popping up around town with criminal justice themes?
The ACLU of Northern California has taken out a few spaces around San Francisco to call for reduced sentences for those convicted for possessing small amounts of illegal drugs and those convicted of non-violent property crimes (like passing bad checks or vandalism). Prosecutors currently have discretion over whether to charge such crimes as felonies, which can mean prison time, or misdemeanors, which don’t. According to the ACLU, 9,000 people are currently in prison in California for possessing a small amount of drugs (in other words, drugs for personal use rather than sale). The ACLU of Northern California recently sent a letter to Governor Jerry Brown calling for these sentencing changes–and is circulating a petition along the same lines–which they say would save millions of dollars.
Brown gets budget-cutting advice
California Auditor Elaine Howle
Today, Governor Jerry Brown got top-ten lists of recommended money savers from the Little Hoover Commission and the State Auditor. Brown had asked both organizations for recommendations on cost-cutting moves to help clear up the state’s budget deficit. Among the recommendations are a few that affect the state’s criminal justice system–some pretty modest, others gigantic.
State Auditor Elaine Howle suggested, among other things, commuting the sentences of 32 state prison inmates who are essentially comatose and releasing them on medical parole, which would shift some of the cost burden for their medical care to the federal government. The specific 32 inmates include 21 who are are hospitalized (or in nursing homes) outside of the prison system and cost $2.1 million per year to guard and house. Including the 11 who are housed in prison facilities, Howle says, ”the annual cost for these 32 inmates alone is $46 million.”
The Little Hoover Commission suggested more sweeping proposals: