CRIM. Special Topics: Exam 1

Total in custody formula is:

total people imprisoned/incarcerated divided by the population in the area multiplied by 100,000.

Voluntary Sentencing Guidelines

During the 1970s, local courts and, occasionally, state judiciaries in most states created systems of voluntary sentencing guidelines-- today referred to as "advisory" guidelines. Judges not bound by them; defendant could not appeal the judge's decision. Most early voluntary guideline systems were abandoned or fell into desuetude. Evaluations through the late 1980s showed that they had few or no effects on sentencing decisions or disparities. However, prison population growth in two especially well-known systems using voluntary guidelines—in Delaware and Virginia—has long been below national averages.

Total adult correctional population 1980-2013=

= 7 mill. (everything went up- expanded across the border).

As a consequence, ?

As a consequence, the absolute disparities in incarceration increased, and imprisonment became common for young minority men, particularly those with little schooling.

What ideology shares several assumptions about crime with the Classical School?

Conservative Ideology

Imprisonment: vs. Incarcerated:

Imprisonment: confined/sentenced in state or federal prisons. (1.5 mill. American pop. imprisoned). Incarcerated: confined to state/federal prisons or local jails. (2.2 mill. American pop. Incarcerated).

in recent years-- federal system vs. state rate

In recent years, the federal prison system has continued to expand, while the state incarceration rate has declined.

Truth-in-Sentencing Laws

Enacted to see both sides-- the criminal's & the harm done. The TIS laws were enacted in 1994 to ensure inmates were not receiving early release from prison, as they prohibited certain offenders from being released before serving at least 85% of their sentence. The TIS laws only apply to those offenders who have committed Part I crimes; Part I crimes fall under two categories: violent crimes and property crimes. (The violent crimes consist of forcible rape, aggravated assault, murder, and robbery. The property crimes are arson, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. These are the crimes for which TIS applies.) Prior to the early 1990s, some inmates weren't even serving half of their prison sentences. To minimize overcrowding in prisons, many offenders were released early on parole. However, after the TIS laws were enacted, many states began to adopt them within their own local governments, increasing the time that inmates would serve in prison. Today, not all states have adopted the TIS laws, but as of 2015, 30 states, including the District of Columbia, have them in place. In contrast, states like Indiana, Texas, Maryland, and Nebraska say inmates must serve at least 50% of their time. An important part of the TIS laws are the federal grants that are given to each state that has implemented them. The grant money is awarded to states for the purpose of expanding the prison system. In other words, it means that grant money would be used, in large part, to design and build more prisons. This, of course, is necessary if criminals are serving longer sentences in those states. (****WE DONT HAVE TRUTH IN SENTENCING JUST BC WE DONT HAVE TO GIVE 85%*****)

What were the actual effects of the reforms enacted? · Determinate Sentencing · Presumptive Sentencing guidelines · T.I.S. · Mandatory Minimums

**main ones**

From 1920-2006, Incarcerated Americans went from

1,000 to 2,300,000.

What changed?:

1. Arrests per crime— figure 2.8 (arrests per 100 adult offenses by crime type), pg. 49- a.) little change overall or for burglary ; robbery & aggravated assault slight increase ; rape & murder slight decrease. ^ very little evidence of the increase of effectiveness of police. b.) drug arrests** (+172% 1980-2001). ^ comes from pro-active policing- clear increase of enforcement. 2. Prison commitments per arrest— steady increase '80-2010— one of main drivers** (fig. 2-9, state prison admissions per 100 adult arrests, 1980-2010)— murder (124%- 41 to 92) ; sexual assault (275%- 8 to 30) ; agg. Assault (250%- 4 to 14) ; drugs (350%- from 2 to 9 per 100 arrests). ^ which one increased the most? In relative terms- tougher on drug crimes. But technically it's murder/negligent manslaughter (had lowest % increase, but in absolute numbers, it doubled). ^what effects the likelihood that someone goes to prison if get arrested? Who is responsible for these decisions? Judges are ones who ultimately issues the sentence, prosecutors- you don't get sentence if not charged with a crime- which is their role. Prosecutors decide if charged, police just arrest. 3, Length of stay in prison increased— main factor in 1990's— violent crimes had greatest increase in length of stay (murder in particular). 4. Parole violations increased (returned for tech. violations)— since early 1990's above 1/3 of prison admissions.— Over 50% of prison admissions in AR.

The NCVS (National Crime Victimization Survey) "How much crime is there, really?"

1. Collected by BJS & the Census Bureau— a) 90 to 100 US households in — interview persons age 12+ (N > 160k) 2. What's measured?— a) crimes against persons & households; b) UCR "Index Offenses" (not murder); c) less-serious crimes (e.g., assault)— d) did they report it to the police; e) perceptions of offender; f) victim offender relationship, etc. Look at violent Crime Trends— NCVS vs UCR. 1770-2005. ^Bc reporting went up / or law enforcement made changes, it appears that violent/property crime was increasing / changing.

Summary: Why Philosophies Matter

1. They provide different answers to the questions "Why" and "How" we should punish. --underlie liberal-conservative positions --often at the root of current debates. 2. Policy implications sometimes conflict. a. what factors should determine punishment? b. who should decide the punishment? 3. Sentencing reforms of the last 40 yrs. reflect changing philosophies of punishment, related to political ideology & assumptions about: a) the causes of crime- choice? inequality? b) people who commit crime- rational? reformable?, and c) the role of gov't

How have the number and percentage of prisoners serving life/LWOP changed over time? Which states have the highest percentages of prisoners with Life or LWOP? Which states have the least? How does Arkansas compare?

2012= --Pennsylvania, Louisiana, & Cali- highest LWOP- near 5,000 by 2012. --AR: close to 600 by 2012. --Least: TX, NY, NJ Over time= Cali has overall highest (Life and LWOP)- with 45,000 Lifers & around 5,000 LWOPs- (went from 0 LWOPs in 1984 to 5,000 in 2012) PENN & LOUIS has only LWOPS around 5,000-- (LOUIS went from 3,700 in 2002 to 5,000 in 2012; PENN went from 1,000 in 1980 to 5,000 in 2012). AR had around 1,100 Lifers in 2004, went to 1,300 in 2012. Had around 450 LWOPs in 2004, went to 600 in 2012.

III. Sentencing "Reform" Wave 2: Sentencing Guidelines (1980 to ) Assessment of Sentencing Guidelines:

A. Pros - 1) sentencing much more consistent (if "presumptive") - judges usually comply; find useful - punishment primarily based on crime & history 2) reduced racial disparity - some disparity remains, generally "small" 3) initially helped limit growth in imprisonment 4) insulate judges from politics (somewhat) - responsibility shared with legislature, commission B. Cons 1) Some (e.g., Fed) too "rigid"; • early SG had few options beside incarceration • NC & AR are more recent/flexible (include "rehab" options) 2) Excessive emphasis on criminal history • priors can carry more weight than the crime - undermines proportionality • increasing age of prison admissions 3) "displacement of discretion" to prosecutor • charges (and plea bargains) determine punishment • undermines uniformity/proportionality; greater disparity? 4) Facilitate (encourage?) politicization • easy/tempting to "ratchet up"

U.S. Sentencing Reform (1970s to 2000s) VI. Sentencing Reform: Summary

A. Sentencing reforms shared certain features: 1. Reduced "discretion" (less choice) in punishment a) At the "front end" (judicial sentencing decisions) --E.g., Guidelines, mand mins., 3-strikes b) At the "back end" (release from prison) --Determinate sentencing (no parole) & TIS --Mand mins & 3 strikes 2) Reforms reflect an Ideological shift (conservative) Rehab focus is replaced with: a) Deterrence, retribution -> Offense-based punishment --Increase certainty & severity (imprisonment) --Less "individualized" --Based mainly on "legal" factors b) Incapacitation -> risk-based punishment --emphasize criminal history --Violent (or potentially) offenders 3) Many reforms shift power to the prosecutor: a) Prosecutors' charging decisions are not regulated or reviewed - can "make the charge fit the punishment" b) "Mandatory" isn't really "mandatory" Prosecutors always decide: • was there a weapon? • Drug quantity? • is it your 3rd "strike"? (etc.) c) Judges must apply the punishment

U.S. Sentencing Reform (1970s to 2000s) Sentencing "crisis" (1970s-80s)

B. Major Criticism 1) Conservatives: • Judges & parole boards too lenient • most serve only a small portion in prison • Doesn't Rehabilitate or protect 2) Liberals • Punishment is arbitrary • Judges & Parole boards discriminate by race 3) The solution? Reduce discretion in the system.

The impact of mandatory sentencing

Because prosecutors and judges often get around them, mandatory minimums lack predictability and certainty. The U.S. Sentencing Commission reported in 1991 that 40 percent of the federal offenders whose crimes should have triggered mandatory‐minimum sentences were able to avoid these sentences. Prosecutors can avoid mandatory minimums by entering into certain kinds of plea bargains. Federal law, for example, allows prosecutors to ask for sentences below the mandatory minimum for defendants who cooperate by providing evidence against other criminals. The enactment of mandatory‐sentencing laws also has resulted in the government's having to spend millions of additional dollars to keep more offenders locked up longer.

AR: Presumptive Sentence Range (January 1, 2018 and thereafter):

If the offense date is January 1, 2018 and thereafter, indicate the presumptive sentence range found on the sentencing grid at the intersecting cell of the seriousness level and total criminal history score. The Presumptive sentence represents a typical case. If the case is atypical, determine if it is an aggravating or mitigating sentence.

Which purposes of punishment would agree that punishment should be "individualized"?

Incapacitation and Rehabilitation

A sentencing system in which a parole board decides an offender's release date is called:

Indeterminate sentencing

Which crime control ideology is most likely to support treatment for drug offenders in prison?

Liberal

Sentencing reforms in the 1970's & 1980's emphasized:

Making punishment more fair & consistent

Most crimes aren't...? Victimization surveys—

Most crimes aren't reported to the police. Victimization surveys— been dropping rapidly from 1973-2003.

Limitations: Non-reporting

Non-reporting— happens via victims & law enforcement agencies. (reporting is voluntary- as part of law enforcement- don't have to do it). One most likely to be reported (besides murder)— is M.V. Theft (motor vehicle theft)

Which ideology is consistent with the idea that criminals are not rational actors and do not simply choose to commit crimes?

The Positivist School

According to deterrence theory, which is most important for punishment to be an effective deterrent?

The certainty* of punishment

"Dark Figure"

The dark (or hidden) figure of crime is a term employed by criminologists and sociologists to describe the amount of unreported or undiscovered crime.

AR: When is a departure reason unnecessary?

The following are common examples of when a departure reason is unnecessary: When the imposed sentence does not depart from the presumptive sentence; When the imposed sentence is the result of a probation/SIS revocation proceeding (See A.C.A. § 16-90- 803(a)(1)(B)); When a jury has recommended a sentence to the trial judge (See A.C.A. § 16-90-803(b)(4)); Felony DWI/BWI; Capital murder (See A.C.A. § 16-90-803(b)(5)); and When the offense is nolle prossed or dismissed.

Describe the overall growth in the incarcerated population, by decade. How did the growth in state prisons compare with federal prisons and local jails?

The state prison population growth compared with that of federal prison and local jail population growths was in that it stayed neck and neck with local jails throughout the 70's and 80's, while federal prisons showed 1/3 of of their populations in 1970's & rose above them in the 1980's. The last 2 decades (90's and 2000's) showed a plummeting across the board for all populations, with the federal prison pop. at the highest, the local jail pop. around 1/2 of that, and the state prison pop. about 1/2 of the local jail pop.

Sentencing Statutes and Guidelines

There are three sentencing systems: those featuring determinate‐sentencing statutes; those using indeterminate‐sentencing statutes; and those applying sentencing guidelines. Some overlap exists among the categories. For example, a mandatory sentence is considered a type of determinate sentence. Mandatory sentencing may be used in jurisdictions that also use indeterminate sentencing as well as in those that use sentencing guidelines.

what did these changes in sentencing reflect?

These changes in sentencing reflected a consensus that viewed incarceration as a key instrument for crime control. Yet over the 4 decades when incarceration rates steadily rose, U.S. crime rates showed no clear trend

Philosophies of Punishment

Why & how do we punish? Why & how should we punish? "Why?" includes: What purpose or goal? Moral justification? "How?" includes: How severe? What criteria? Who decides?

Because of the large disparity—

—which was already high in 1972—the steep increase in incarceration rates produced extremely high rates of incarceration for blacks but not whites. In 2010, the imprisonment rate for blacks was 4.6 times that for whites—the lowest disparity in imprisonment over the entire period for which race-specific incarceration rates are available. Although the disparity had declined from its peak in the early 1990s, it was still very large—of a magnitude that exceeds racial differences for many other common social indicators. For example, black-white ratios for indicators as varied as wealth, employment, poverty, and infant mortality are significantly smaller than the 4.6 to 1 ratio in imprisonment

The intent of the Arkansas Sentencing Commission is to:

• Establish sentencing standards. • Monitor and assess the impact of practices, policies and existing laws on the correctional resources of the State. 11 Commission Members (9 Voting, 2 Non-Voting)

SERIOUSNESS LEVEL 1

AS = Alternative Sanctions, CCC = Community Correction Center, ADC = ADC Facility Only Transfer Eligibility - one-third of time imposed minus good time of up to one-half, i.e. one sixth of time imposed if offender earns maximum good time. Defrauding Secured Creditors Defrauding Judgment Creditors Computer Fraud Keeping a Gambling House False Evidence Title Registration Duty to Give Information or Render Aid Class- D Normal Range- 0-6 (AS) Habitual §(a)- 0-12 (AS) Habitual §(b)- 0-15 (CCC) Habitual §(c)- n/a (ADC- 1-2 yrs; CCC; AS) Habitual §(d)- 20-40 (ADC- 2-3 yrs; CCC; AS)

AR: Transfer eligibility line:

Above the line (7-10) - offenders must serve ½ their sentence less any good time (max reduction to ¼) before becoming transfer eligible; Below the line (1-6) - offenders must serve 1/3 of their sentence less any good time (max reduction to ½) before becoming transfer eligible.

When were the major phases of sentencing reform, and what were the main goals or emphases in each phase? That is, what were the guiding principles, and what were they trying to achieve? (e.g., What purpose(s) of punishment did they emphasize?

American sentencing policies, practices, and patterns have changed dramatically during the past 40 years. The federal system and every U.S. state had an "indeterminate sentencing" system premised on ideas about the need to individualize sentences in each case and on rehabilitation as the primary aim of punishment. Indeterminate sentencing had been ubiquitous in the United States since the 1930s. Sentencing was individualized & judges had wide discretion. Criticisms of indeterminate sentencing grew-- starting 1972: Absence of standards; Unable to keep rehabilitative promises; Unwarranted disparities & risk of bias; Lacking procedural fairness, transparency, & predictability; Inconsistent- allowed undue "leniency"; etc. Those criticisms sparked major changes in American sentencing and punishments, and ultimately in the scale of imprisonment. In retrospect, there were 3 distinct phases

Beginning in the early 1970s, in a time of rising violence and rapid social change,

Beginning in the early 1970s, in a time of rising violence and rapid social change, policy makers turned to incarceration to denounce the moral insult of crime and to deter and incapacitate criminals. As offender accountability and crime control were emphasized, principles that previously had limited the severity of punishment were eclipsed, and punishments became more severe. Even under the best conditions, incarceration can do great harm—not only to those who are imprisoned, but also more broadly to families, communities, and society as a whole.

Incarceration is strongly correlated with negative social and economic outcomes for former prisoners and their families

From 1980 to 2000, the number of children with incarcerated fathers increased from about 350,000 to 2.1 million—about 3% of all U.S. children. From 1991 to 2007, the number of children with a father or mother in prison increased 77% and 131%, respectively.

1990's laws/policy changes-

In the 1990s, Congress and more than one-half of the states enacted "three strikes and you're out" laws that mandated minimum sentences of 25 years or longer for affected offenders. A majority of states enacted "truth-in-sentencing" laws requiring affected offenders to serve at least 85% of their nominal prison sentences. The Congress enacted such a law in 1984.

Rehabilitation:

Reduce offending by addressing the cause of an individual's crime. A. Positivist School 1. Behavior "caused" by forces beyond individual's control --not simply a rational choice --not "free will" 2. Moral obligation to "treat" the offender --"punishment" per se unwarranted --but society has right to protect itself 3. "Treatment" based on "criminogenic needs" --designed to address the causes of his/her crime --focus is on changing the person

What are the main "schools of thought" in criminology? What does each school of thought assume about human nature and about the causes of crime? What does each "school" say about the purpose of laws and about punishment?

The Classical School & The Positivist School

"Correctional Population":

persons under supervision/custody of local, state, and federal correctional authorities. (6.9m in 2011)

Retribution:

A. Why punish? Bc "Justice demands it." (just deserts) 1) necessary to uphold the *social contract* (Locke) --offenders owe a "debt to society" --"held accountable" 2. deserved bc crime is freely chosen (people have "free will") --actions not freely chosen do not deserve punishment, e.g., self-defense; NGRI 3. proportional to harm --no more or less than deserved *Use of any other criteria is unjust/undeserved*

The impact of indeterminate sentencing

Benefits of sentence‐reduction programs, such as good‐time laws and early parole release, include promotion of discipline within prisons (because inmates are motivated to engage in good behavior in order to earn or avoid losing good time) and the reduction of prison overcrowding. Critics complain that most offenders are released from prison before serving their full sentences and that indeterminate sentences produce gross sentencing disparities because they allow judges too much discretion.

U.S. Sentencing Reform (1970s to 2000s) III. Sentencing "Reform" Wave 2: Sentencing Guidelines (1980 to )

Currently used in 17 states & Federal courts A. Main Features: 1) Independent Sentencing Commissions --Cj officials (LE, Courts, Corrections), legislators, public, etc. --Establish purposes of punishment --Develop guidelines & advise legislature 2) Judge discretion limited, not eliminated 3) Sentencing "grid" based on 2 factors: a. Crime seriousness (ranked by legislature) b. Criminal history (based on a formula) 4) "Presumptive" (mandatory) in 9 states • "Advisory" (Voluntary) in 8 (incl. AR) 5) About half are also determinate • abolished "parole" 6) Multiple Rationales • Retribution, Deterrence (seriousness levels) • Incapacitation (criminal history) • Rehab (community corrections; alternative sanctions)

AR: Target Offenses:

Designations in the Seriousness Reference Table are advisory only. Refer to A.C.A. §§ 16-93-1201 et seq. for legal definitions or contact the court referral coordinator at the Department of Community Correction at 501-682-9563.

What argues that punishment is necessary because criminals are rational human beings with free will that weigh the costs/benefits?

Deterrence

Recommendation:

Given the small crime prevention effects of long prison sentences and the possibly high financial, social, and human costs of incarceration, federal and state policy makers should revise current criminal justice policies to significantly reduce the rate of incarceration in the United States. In particular, they should reexamine policies regarding mandatory prison sentences and long sentences. Policy makers should also take steps to improve the experience of incarcerated men and women and reduce unnecessary harm to their families and their communities. We recommend such a systematic review of penal and related policies with the goals of achieving a significant reduction in the number of people in prison in the United States and providing better conditions for those in prison. To promote these goals, jurisdictions would need to review a range of programs, including community-based alternatives to incarceration, probation and parole, prisoner reentry support, and diversion from prosecution, as well as crime prevention initiatives.

The criticism that prosecutors' discretion is taken away when deciding what the appropriate charge should be is in reference to what ?

Mandatory minimums

Prison pop-- ethnicity

More than half the prison population is black or Hispanic. In 2010, blacks were incarcerated at 6x and Hispanics at 3x the rate for non-Hispanic whites. (Ab 40% are white non-Hispanics)

Minority/poverty prison pop.

People who live in poor and minority communities have always had substantially higher rates of incarceration than other groups. As a consequence, the effects of harsh penal policies in the past 40 years have fallen most heavily on blacks and Hispanics, especially the poorest.

In absolute terms (total numbers), which correctional population increased the most btwn 1980 and 2010?

Ppl on probation

Community Supervision/Corrections—

Probation (4.8m); Parole/Post-release supervision (853k)

How do recidivism rates of people sentenced to Life (with parole) compare to other former prisoners?

Support for life and LWOP sentences is in part premised on the assumption that the recipients of these sentences will reoffend if released. Recidivism among life-sentenced prisoners who are granted parole is low, however, calling into question the accuracy of public safety arguments in support of lengthy terms of imprisonment. --found that individuals released from life sentences were less than one-third as likely to be rearrested within three years as all released persons. More recently, a 2011 California-based study tracked 860 people convicted of homicide and sentenced to life, all of whom were paroled beginning in 1995. Longitudinal analysis of their outcomes finds that in the years since their release, only five individuals (less than 1%) have been returned to prison or jail because of new felonies. To measure the potential for public safety public safety implications of life-sentences, it is valuable to examine the behavior of life-sentenced prisoners who are still incarcerated; the behavior of people in prison is likely to be predictive of their behavior on release. Those sentenced to lengthy terms of incarceration are more likely to become institutionalized, lose pro-social contacts in the community, and become removed from legitimate opportunities for success upon release.

Poor health status of inmate population

The poor health status of the inmate population serves as a basic marker of its social disadvantage and underlines the contemporary importance of prisons as public health institutions. Incarceration is associated with overlapping afflictions of substance use, mental illness, and risk for infectious diseases (HIV, viral hepatitis, sexually transmitted diseases, and others).

U.S. Sentencing Reform (1970s to 2000s) I. Indeterminate Sentencing

Used by all 50 states & Fed from 1900s to 1975 (about 33 states today) A. Main features: 1) Judges have broad discretion - choose prison vs. probation, regardless of the crime - set maximum term (min in some states) - prison sentences have wide ranges (e.g., 5 to 15 years; 15 to life) 2) Release by Parole board - time incarcerated is "indeterminate" - most states require 30-50% before eligible - returned to prison for violating parole conditions (revocation) 3) Rehabilitation philosophy dominant* - "individualized" punishment - released when "reformed" - incentive to change *In practice, other goals also affect punishment. Rehabilitation is the official purpose.

Why did our response to crime change?

a.) Policies— "sentencing" (laws that effect what judges are supposed to do w someone that's committed a crime); sentencing guidelines; truth in sentencing (T.I.S); 3-strikes; mandatory min.; abolishing paroles b.) Discretion (Practices)

Crime reduction and socioeconomic disadvantage

crime reduction and socioeconomic disadvantage are both plausible outcomes of increased incarceration, but estimates of the size of these effects range widely. High rates of incarceration are associated with lower levels of civic and political engagement among former prisoners and their families and friends than among others in their communities. For these people, the quality of citizenship—the quality of their membership in American society and their relationship to public institutions—has been impaired. These developments have created a highly distinct political and legal universe for a large segment of the U.S. population. (The change in penal policy over the past 4 decades may have had a wide range of unwanted social costs, and the magnitude of crime reduction benefits is highly uncertain.)

Data presented in class showed that more than 1/2 of growth in prison pop. from 1990-2009 consists of people convicted ___?

of violent crimes

What explains the unprecedented growth in imprisonment/dramatic increase in incarceration in the US?

population growth (no!- tho it contributes to total numbers), increase in serious crime (no!), more severe punishment (yes! We've become more punitive- made private industry out of it, enforcement increased, changed lots of law that changes punishments independent of the amount of crime).

In the 1960s and 1970s, a changed political climate provided the context for a series of policy choices. Across all branches and levels of government, criminal processing and sentencing expanded the use of incarceration in a number of ways:

prison time was increasingly required for lesser offenses; time served was significantly increased for violent crimes and for repeat offenders; and drug crimes, particularly street dealing in urban areas, became more severely policed and punished. These changes in punishment policy were the main and proximate drivers of the growth in incarceration.

The distribution of incarceration across the population is highly uneven-- regardless of race/ethnicity, jail inmates are predominantly ..?

regardless of race or ethnicity, prison and jail inmates are drawn mainly from the least educated segments of society Among white male high school dropouts born in the late 1970s, about one-third are estimated to have served time in prison by their mid-30s. Among black male high school dropouts, about two-thirds have a prison record by that same age—more than twice the rate for their white counterparts.

AR: DEPARTURE FROM THE SENTENCING STANDARDS GRID

When do I need a departure reason? The Order must include information on any departure from the sentencing guidelines on placement and sentence length, the number of months above or below the presumptive sentencing range, and justification for the departure. See A.C.A. § 16-90-802(d)(11). Where do I put the departure reason(s) and what information is required? There is a section located near the end of each offense to indicate whether a sentence is a departure. Indicate either an Aggravating Departure Reason or a Mitigating Departure Reason, but never both for the same offense. If the sentence is higher than the presumptive sentencing range, indicate the Aggravating Departure Reason number. If the sentence is lower than the presumptive sentencing range, indicate the Mitigating Departure Reason number. Also, indicate if the sentence departure is durational or dispositional. If the departure is durational, indicate the number of months above or below the presumptive sentencing range. What is the difference between a durational and dispositional departure? A durational departure occurs when the imposed months are higher or lower than the presumptive ADC time. A dispositional departure occurs when the type of sanction given (AS, CCC, or ADC) is not listed as an option for the presumptive sentence.

AR: How is release eligibility affected by enhanced sentences or habitual offender status?

Enhancements: Release eligibility for sentence enhancements is generally determined by the specific code provision defining the enhancement. Unless otherwise noted in the specific enhancement statute, the percentage of time served shall be calculated the same as the underlying offense. Enhancements on underlying offenses above the transfer eligibility line would serve one-half (1/2) less good time. Enhancements on underlying offenses below the transfer eligibility line would serve one-third (1/3) less good time. For convictions subject to a statutory override, transfer eligibility of the enhancement portion of the sentence will be the same as the underlying offense. Habitual Offender Status: The "two and three strikes" sections of the habitual offender statute, codified at A.C.A. §§ 5-4-501 (c) and (d) respectively, must also be specifically noted on the Sentencing Order for the ADC to be aware of their applicability. A.C.A. § 16-93-615(h) states that an inmate who is sentenced under these provisions for a serious violent felony or a felony involving violence may be considered eligible for parole or for community correction transfer upon reaching regular parole or transfer eligibility, but only after reaching a minimum age of fifty-five (55) years.

About 1/2 of the states created what kind of laws in the mid-1990's?

"three-strikes-and-you're-out" laws

AR: Alternative Sanctions - includes: ADC: CCC:

(1) Probation, both supervised and unsupervised; (2) Suspended imposition of sentence; (3) Work on service programs coupled with or without (1) or (2) above; (4) Local jail time up to the maximum authorized by law as a condition of (1) or (2) above; (5) Community Correction Programs as defined and provided by the Board of Corrections or by local courts as conditions of (1) or (2) above. ADC - Commitment to the Arkansas Department of Correction. CCC - Community Correction Center - multipurpose facilities encompassing security, punishment and services such that offenders can be housed therein when necessary but can also be assigned to or access punishment programs and services which are housed there, included therein are revocation centers, restitution centers, work release centers, and Community Correction Centers.

AR: A presumptive sentence for a typical case is determined on a grid with two dimensions:

(1) offense seriousness level and (2) offender criminal history. Offense seriousness level is determined by reference to a table adopted by the Commission which lists all felony offenses in one of ten levels of seriousness. Offender criminal history is determined by reference to the statute, A.C.A. § 16-90-803, which allocates points for different levels of felonies, misdemeanors, certain juvenile adjudications, and custody status at the time that an offense was committed. Determining the presumptive sentence for a particular offense is a starting point for the sentencing process. The presumptive sentence is not intended to be the sentence in a particular case unless, in the judgment of the prosecutor and the defense attorney and/or the judge, the offense represents a typical case based upon their experience and knowledge. If the case is atypical, the procedure is defined for departing from the presumption. The full statutory range of punishment is available for all cases

AR: The Guidelines do not apply in the following circumstances:

(a) when a jury recommends a sentence, (b) when the statutory minimum or maximum is below or above the range, (c) in capital murder cases, and (d) in revocation proceedings.

What do liberal and conservative ideologies assume about the causes of crime? What does each ideology emphasize as the appropriate response to crime, and why?

.... The ideologies represented in the classical and positive schools, as well as the political ideologies of conservatism, liberalism, and radicalism, are at the center of current crises in criminal justice policy. Classical, conservative, and liberal justice models center around punishment and retribution as dominant criminal justice goals; traditional liberal and positivist models stress rehabilitation; and radical models call for the elimination of capitalism as the only effective means of system reform.

Conclusion of chapter 2:

1. Current incarceration rates are historically and comparatively unprecedented. The United States has the highest incarceration rates in the world, reaching extraordinary absolute levels in the most recent two decades. 2. The growth in imprisonment—most rapid in the 1980s, then slower in the 1990s and 2000s—is attributable largely to increases in prison admission rates and time served. Increased admission rates are closely associated with increased incarceration for drug crimes and explain much of the growth of incarceration in the 1980s, while increased time served is closely associated with incarceration for violent crimes and explains much of the growth since the 1980s. These trends are, in turn, attributable largely to changes in sentencing policy over the period. Rising rates of incarceration for major offenses are not associated with trends in crime. 3. The growth in incarceration rates in the 1970s and 1980s was associated with high and increasing black-white disparities that subsequently declined in the 1990s and 2000s. Yet despite the decline in racial disparity, the black-white ratio of incarceration rates remained very high (greater than 4 to 1) by 2010. 4. Racial and ethnic disparities have combined with sex, age, and education stratification to produce extremely high rates of incarceration among recent cohorts of young African American men with no college education. Among recent cohorts of black men, about one in five who have never been to college and well over half of all high school dropouts have served time in state or federal prison at some point in their lives.

The Classical School

1. Only the legislator has the authority to make laws. Only laws can set the punishment for crimes. It is the legislature-- not the judge-- to fix the precise punishments for violations of the law. Prohibited acts/their attended penalties should be matters of public knowledge. The role of the judge--limited to determination of guilty/innocence of accused--allowed little to no role in determining penalties for given offenses/offenders. 2. Humans are both rational and possessed of free will-- responsible for their own actions. Humans are governed by the principle of utility (they seek pleasure/happiness and avoid pain/unhappiness). 3. Punishment should be based on the social harm of the act and not on the "intention" of the offender. Fitting offenses should receive fit punishments; punishment should "fit the crime" and not the criminal. 4. Goal of punishment= the prevention of crime; only secondarily to exact retribution for the harm an offender has caused. To prevent crime- punishments should be just severe enough for the pain/unhappiness created by punishment to outweigh the pleasure/happiness obtainable from the crime. (all that's required for an offender to be deterred from violating the law again in future-- "specific deterrence"). If costs are higher than the benefits that can be derived from illegal behavior, those in public contemplating criminal acts will also decide against pursuing such activities ("general deterrence"). 5. Certainty and swiftness of punishment are more crucial to prevention of crime than is severity; the certainty of a punishment will always be stronger than the fear of another which is more terrible but combined with hope of impunity (exemption from punishment). 6. The rights of accused persons should be protected against abuse. (accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty-- court hearings should be governed by clear/fair procedures).

U.S. Sentencing Reform (1970s to 2000s) II. Sentencing "Reform" Wave 1: Determinate Sentencing (1976 - ?)

17 States currently A. Main Features: 1) Judge orders a specific term (e.g., 24 months) - in some states judges still choose jail, prison, or probation 2) "Abolished Parole" (sort of) a) most released "early" (prior to serving full sentence), but not by parole board. • sometimes called "mandatory parole" b) time in prison is "determinate" (predictable) = total sentence minus "good time" credit (typically 1/3 to ½ off) c) most still use "Post-release supervision" • "conditional release" 3) Retribution, Deterrence replace Rehab - certainty (predictable) & fairness (just deserts) - not necessarily more severe - "fit the crime" (offense based) in 9 states - sentences set by law (e.g., CA, IL) B. Criticisms 1) judges still have too much & too little discretion - decide prison vs. probation - but can't individualize sentence length - many given probation to avoid long prison term 2) not enforceable in most states - over time, judges simply ignored the laws

One-Third:

A person sentenced to ADC for a felony ranked in seriousness levels one through six on the Seriousness Reference Table will become eligible for transfer to community supervision after serving one-third (1/3) of his or her sentence with credit for meritorious good time. For example, a person receiving a seventy-two (72) month sentence with optimal meritorious good time credits will be eligible for transfer to community supervision in twelve (12) months.

One-Half:

A person sentenced to ADC for a felony ranked in seriousness levels seven through ten on the Seriousness Reference Table will become eligible for transfer to community supervision after serving one-half (1/2) of his or her sentence with credit for meritorious good time. For example, a person receiving a seventy-two (72) month sentence with optimal meritorious good time credits will be eligible for transfer to community supervision in eighteen (18) months.

Prison Admissions per Arrest

A second point of criminal justice intervention is the sentencing of those who have been arrested, charged, and convicted. For the major crime types handled at the state level, the probability that arrest would lead to prison rose over the three decades from 1980 to 2010. The number of prison commitments per 100 adult arrests showed a significant and nearly steady increase. For example, the rate of commitment to state prison for murder rose from 41 to 92 per 100 arrests, an increase of more than 120%. The percentage changes for three other categories of offenses—sexual assault, aggravated assault, and drug crimes—were well over 200%. Between 1980 and 2010, prison commitments for drug offenses rose 350% (from 2 to 9 per 100 arrests); commitments for sexual assault rose 275% (from 8 to 30 per 100 arrests); and commitments for aggravated assault rose 250% (from 4 to 14 per 100 arrests). State prison commitment rates for burglary and robbery also increased, but these increases were below 100%. These figures indicate that an increased probability that arrest would lead to prison commitment contributed greatly to the rise in incarceration rates between 1980 and 2010.

Policy Implications:

A. Deterrence & Retribution agree, partly: (Punishment should "fit the crime" - offense-based) 1) proportional to seriousness 2) established by law & applied equally --if left to judges, punishment will not be consistent. --if inconsistent: *no deterrence & no justice* 3) some (limited) discretion is allowed --e.g., consider mitigating or aggravating factors related to crime (harm) or the person's culpability (desert) B. Rehabilitation & Incapacitation agree, partly: (Punishment should be "individualized" - offender-based) 1) judges must have discretion to decide 2) community corrections for most (minimal use of prison) --diversion, probation, intermediate sanctions 3) prison only when necessary C. Rehabilitation & Incapacitation *disagree* on much. 1) Rehab-focus on *reforming the person* a. Identify and treat the causes of crime --education, job training, drug & alc. treatment, etc. --maintain community ties; avoid doing more harm (e.g., labeling) b. "Intermediate" prison sentence with parole --parole board decides when to release --purpose of parole is reintegration into community 2) Incapacitation-- focuses on *risk & control* (little concern for the person or fairness) a. Probation & Intermediate sanctions for low risk --intensive supervision; elect. monitoring; drug testing --employment & housing restrictions b. Incarceration for moderate-high risk --long prison terms for "high risk" offenders --intensive "post-release supervision"

AR: Grid Chart- ALL SENTENCE DURATIONS ARE SHOWN IN MONTHS COMMITTED TO THE ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION.

ADC = Penitentiary Only, CCC = Community Correction Center (See Community Correction Center Policy Statement), AS = Alternative Sanctions Transfer Eligibility Line - Eligibility on sentences above the line is 1/2 of the sentence minus good time. Eligibility on sentences below the line is 1/3 of the sentence minus good time.

SERIOUSNESS LEVEL 10

ADC Facility Only 70% Parole Eligibility Murder I* Causing a Catastrophe Terrorism Exposing Public to Toxic Biological, Chemical Or Radioactive Substances Class- Y Normal Range- 10-40 or Life Habitual §(a)- 10-60 or Life Habitual §(b)- 10-Life Habitual §(c)- 40-80 or Life Habitual §(d)- Life

Which states increased LOS the most, which increased the least, and how does Arkansas compare?

Among prisoners released in 2009 from reporting states, Michigan had the longest average time served, at 4.3 years, followed closely by Pennsylvania (3.8 years), New York (3.6 years), and Virginia (3.3 years). South Dakota had the lowest average time served at 1.3 years, followed by Tennessee (1.9 years), and Missouri (2.1 years), and North Dakota (2.0 years). AR= 3.2 yrs. in 2009. From 1990-2009, the percent change: Florida increased the most- 1.1 -> 3.0 = 166% Then Virginia- 1.7 -> 3.3 = 91% Then N. Carolina- 1.4 -> 2.7 = 86% Illinois increased the least- 2.2 -> 1.7* = -25% Then S. Dakota- 1.7 -> 1.3 = -24% AR % change- above avg.- 1.9 -> 3.2 = 69%

AR Sentencing system- essay ?s

Advisory/Voluntary; Presumptive Guidelines; Indeterminate Sentencing Equity in sentencing-- proportional & balanced (similar sentences for similar offenders with similar histories) "Grid" sentencing standards chart Presumptive system: offense seriousness level (up) & offender criminal history (across). --seriousness level (list 1-10 ranking seriousness of felonies) ; criminal history (points for diff. levels of felonies, AS/CCC, etc. & custody status at time of offense) *Not designed to "be the sentence"-- used to show full range of sentencing options*. (INDETERMINATE-- individualized on backgrounds/relative threat of crime) Indeterminate-- release decided by parole board, which have eligibility policies (70%) for Y; cant exceed 50% sentences (good time) --AR predominately PRESUMPTIVE based, but does include history of criminals-- BUT not extremely severe like 3-strikes laws. *(We don't have truth in sentencing just because we don't have to uphold 85% standard of prison sentence)* Emphasis on VIOLENT CRIME: Y offenses-- aggravated assault on officers; aggravated types of burglary/robbery; arson; battery; capital murder; causing catastrophe; terrorist; enterprise- drug trafficking What is it designed to achieve?== Partial judge discretion (limited); usually comply but can depart in non-typical cases; no social injustice/bias; less imprisonment rates. (*We have 70% parole eligibility for Y felonies*) Deterrence by Presumptive-- Purpose of punishments is to fit the crime & consider the individual offender -- mostly "offense-based" & partially "offender-based" (considering history of offender is trying to keep ppl from re-offending by considering their history when convicting an offender)-- (Deterrence + Retribution)= considering mitigating or aggravating factors related to the crime (harm) or person's culpability (deserts) With parole, the focus is the incentive to change criminals-- "offender determines release"; follow rules. --AR has ADVISORY (Grid) which equates the idea of no appeals. The presumptive grid is the means in which discretion is restricted-- incentive is good time & push for the idea of consistency --ALT. SANCTIONS= ex. boot camps; drug treatments to reform/keep them out of prison As for the grid, as move up & to the right-- Less Discretion (higher seriousness level; higher criminal history)= more firm; going in opposite direction-- down & to left-- more discretion (less serious; no sign of threat- not habitual, dangerous offender)

Mandatory sentences (Review)

All 50 states have mandatory‐sentencing laws for crimes such as drunk driving, committing a crime with a dangerous weapon, and selling drugs. Such laws deny judges their traditional powers of discretion. Judges can't reduce the term for offenses that carry prescribed mandatory‐minimum sentences, and they are restricted from imposing alternative sentences in the community. Mandatory‐sentencing laws enhance the power of prosecutors, who decide what charges to file against defendants, and they are popular with politicians because they make politicians appear tough to the public.

Parsimony

Although legislators may not realize it, reduction of unduly severe sentences for drug offenders will help bring federal sentencing back in line with the long-overlooked principle of "parsimony." In the criminal justice context, parsimony dictates that sentences should be no greater than necessary to serve the legitimate goals of punishment, namely, retribution for past crimes, deterrence of future ones, and rehabilitation of the offender. Congress once recognized the importance of parsimony. In the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, it instructed federal judges to impose sentences that were "sufficient, but not greater than necessary" to advance the purposes of punishment. But starting in 1986, against a backdrop of social and economic turmoil, racial tension, and the advent of crack cocaine, Congress enacted mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws with stunning disregard for whether they would yield needlessly harsh sentences -- which they invariably did for the low-level offenders who made up the bulk of those receiving them. Because Congress elected to key the minimum sentences to the quantity of a drug rather than the role or degree of culpability of the offender, they result in such obviously unfair outcomes.

Describe the concentration of imprisonment rates by race, sex, age, and education.

Although racial and ethnic disparities in incarceration are very large, differences by age, sex, and education are even larger. The combined effects of racial and education disparities have produced extraordinarily high incarceration rates among young minority men with little schooling. The age and gender composition of the incarcerated population has changed since the early 1970s, but the broader demographic significance of the penal system lies in the very high rate of incarceration among prime-age men. The prison population also has aged as time served in prison has increased, but 60% of all prisoners still were under age 40 in 2011.

Crime and the Dynamics of the Penal Population

Analysis of population dynamics offers a simple model in which the growth of incarceration has two main causes: the level of crime in society and the policy response to crime Criminal offending determines the number of people who might be arrested and then serve time in prison, while criminal justice policy determines the likelihood and duration of incarceration for those arrested. The diffusion of new sentencing policies focused at first on the development of sentencing guidelines and determinate sentencing policies, and more recently included initiatives designed to increase the certainty and severity of prison sentences. In the first phase, primarily from the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, a wave of reforms aimed to make sentencing procedures fairer and outcomes more predictable and consistent. In the second phase, from the mid-1980s through 1996, changes in sentencing policy were aimed primarily at making sentences for drug and violent crimes harsher and their imposition more certain. The principal mechanisms to these ends were mandatory minimum sentences, "three strikes" laws, laws labeled "truth-in-sentencing," and laws mandating life without possibility of parole for certain offenses. Since the mid-1990s, no states have created new comprehensive sentencing systems, none has enacted new truth-in-sentencing laws, and only one has enacted a three strikes law.

100% Time Served - Statutory Override:

Any person who commits a violent felony offense or any felony sex offense subsequent to August 13, 2001, and who has previously been found guilty of or pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to any violent felony offense or any felony sex offense shall not be eligible for release on parole by the Parole Board. For purposes of this section, a violent felony offense or any felony sex offense means those offenses listed in A.C.A. § 5-4-501(d)(2). For example, an inmate sentenced to a five year sentence must serve five years or a forty year sentence must serve forty years. See A.C.A. § 16-93-609 (Act 1805 of 2001).When an offender has been committed to the ADC for a violent or sexual felony offense, ADC personnel run a criminal background check. After verifying that he or she has a previous conviction which falls under A.C.A. § 5-4-501(d)(2), ADC will automatically set their time to serve at 100%. Since this is an eligibility issue and not a sentence enhancement, it does not have to be alleged on the Criminal Information or noted on the Order. Act 895 of 2015, The Criminal Justice Reform Act of 2015, added § 5-39-201, Residential burglary and its inchoate versions, to the offenses listed in A.C.A. § 5-4-501(d)(2) which are applicable to 100% transfer eligibility.

The growth in imprisonment in the 1980s was mainly due to:

a higher prison commitment rate

Sentencing guidelines

By 1998, 17 states and the federal government had adopted sentencing guidelines. These guidelines shift sentencing power from state judges to legislators. To determine the proper sentence, judges follow a grid, which identifies what the proper sentence is for a person who has committed a specific crime and who has a certain criminal history score (based on the number and severity of prior criminal convictions). Congress passed the Federal Sentencing Guidelines Act in 1984, which eliminated parole for federal prisoners, limited early release from prison for good behavior, and curtailed the discretion of federal district court judges. Neither federal nor state judges can deviate from sentencing guidelines except when there are aggravating or mitigating circumstances that are not adequately covered in the guidelines. After making such departures from the guidelines, judges must justify them in writing. Advantages of guidelines include an opportunity to reduce sentencing disparities, the potential for ensuring rationality in sentencing (for example, making sure that violent crimes are punished with the most severe penalties), and a chance to alleviate prison overcrowding by calibrating the guidelines in a way that reserves prison space for offenders who have committed serious crimes or who have a long history of criminal involvement. But sentencing guidelines vary, and not all guidelines yield the same benefits. The federal sentencing guidelines, for example, have been subjected to sharp criticism.

How did the growth in incarceration differ by crime type? What does this suggest about the factors that caused incarceration rates to increase?

Changes in crime rates affect the numbers of people subject to arrest, conviction, and sentencing and are thus a key source of changes in incarceration rates. The states' combined incarceration rates increased across all crime categories (murder, sexual assault, robbery, assault, burglary, and drugs) from 1980 to 2010. Most striking, however, is the dramatic increase in the incarceration rate for drug-related crimes. In 1980, imprisonment for drug offenses was rare, with a combined state incarceration rate of 15 per 100,000 population. By 2010, the drug incarceration rate had increased nearly 10x to 143 per 100,000. The rate of incarceration for the single category of drug-related offenses, excluding local jails and federal prisons, by itself exceeds by 50% the average incarceration rate for all crimes of Western European countries and is twice the average incarceration rate for all crimes, including pretrial detainees, of a significant number of European countries.

4) How do the major goals of punishment view the importance of (a) proportionality and (b) "parsimony"?

Considerations of proportionality and parsimony have fallen into neglect in the United States. Many laws enacted in the 1980s and 1990s required less serious crimes to be punished more severely than more serious ones. Examples include mandatory minimum sentence laws requiring longer terms for people convicted of small sales of drugs than terms typically imposed for many violent offenses, and the sentencing of people to 25-year minimum terms for property misdemeanors under California's three strikes law. Such laws violate the fundamental principle that punishments should be proportionate to the seriousness of crimes. Other laws mandating prison sentences vastly longer than can be justified by their crime prevention effects violate the principle of parsimony. Deterrence + Denunciation + Rehabilitation + Protection of the Community x (Offender + offence) = the appropriate punishment

The impact of determinate sentencing

Determinate sentences move power in the sentencing process from judges to prosecutors, increase the likelihood that offenders will be sent to prison, lengthen sentences, increase the proportion of sentences served in prison before release, and contribute to prison overcrowding. Determinate‐sentencing laws restrict the early release of prisoners and require offenders to serve a substantial portion of their sentences (usually 85 percent) before they can be released. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (1994) requires states that want to qualify for federal financial aid to change their laws so offenders serve at least 85 percent of their sentences.

What type of sentencing is based on a philosophy of making punishment fit the crime?

Determinate sentencing

Determinate sentences (Review)

Disillusionment with rehabilitation in the 1970s led to the adoption of determinate‐sentencing laws. Determinate sentences require a fixed period of confinement, with possible reduction for parole. A legislature fixes the terms for particular crimes, thus taking away the sentencing discretion of judges. Under determinate sentencing, the judge still makes the decision of whether or not the offender goes to prison, but the decision as to the length of sentence is taken away from the judge. In some instances, inmates sentenced under determinate sentences are still eligible for parole after serving a portion of their terms.

Phase One

During the first, principally from 1975 to the mid-1980s, the reform movement aimed primarily to make sentencing procedures fairer and sentencing outcomes more predictable and consistent. The problems to be solved were "racial and other unwarranted disparities," and the mechanisms for solving it were various kinds of comprehensive sentencing and parole guidelines and statutory sentencing standards.

70% Parole Eligibility - Statutory Override:

For certain offenses, offenders are required to serve 70% of their sentence before reaching transfer eligibility. These offenses are: Murder in the first degree, § 5-10- 102; Kidnapping, Felony Class Y, § 5-11-102; Aggravated robbery, § 5-12-103; Rape, § 5-14-103; Trafficking of Persons, § 5-18-103; Causing a catastrophe, § 5-38-202; Manufacturing methamphetamine, § 5-64-423(a) or the former § 5-64-401; Trafficking methamphetamine, § 5-64-440(b)(1); or Possession of drug paraphernalia with the purpose to manufacture methamphetamine, the former § 5-64-403(c)(5). Attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit one of these offenses is not subject to 70% parole eligibility.

Incarceration rates-- race & education:

Extremely high incarceration rates had emerged among prime-age non-college men by 2010. Around 4% of non-college white men and a similar proportion of non-college Hispanic men in this age group were incarcerated in 2010. The education gradient is especially significant for African Americans. Among prime-age black men, around 15% of those with no college and fully a third of high school dropouts were incarcerated on an average day in 2010. Thus at the height of the prison boom in 2010, the incarceration rate for all African Americans is estimated to be 1,300 per 100,000. For black men under age 40 who had dropped out of high school, the incarceration rate is estimated to be more than 25 times higher, at 35,000 per 100,000. Educational disparities also shed light on the relatively high level of incarceration among Hispanics. Hispanics are incarcerated at a lower rate than non-Hispanic whites at every level of education. Because Hispanics— and new immigrants in particular—tend to have very low levels of education, there are relatively more Hispanics than whites in the high incarceration group of those with less than a high school education. In sum, trends in these disaggregated rates of incarceration show that not only did incarceration climb to historically high levels, but also its growth was concentrated among prime-age men with little schooling, particularly low-educated black and Hispanic men. For this segment of the population, acutely disadvantaged to begin with, serving time in prison had become commonplace.

AR: How do I differentiate between incarceration in ADC and other sanctions on the Order?

For each offense, there is a section to indicate the Defendant's sentence. Each sentence option is listed within that section. See below for a discussion of when to use a particular sanction. Imposed: This option is to be used when an offender is sentenced to a term of incarceration. Check boxes indicate whether the imposed sentence is a term of incarceration in an ADC facility, a sentence to the ADC with a judicial transfer to an ACC facility (Jud. Tran.), or a term of incarceration in a County Jail. Under the check boxes, indicate the number of months imposed. Please note: The imposed sentence includes only time for which the offender is incarcerated. It does not include suspended imposition of sentence. A.C.A. § 5-4- 104(e)(1)(B)(ii) prohibits the suspension of the execution of a sentence. Probation: This option is to be used when an offender is placed on probation. Indicate the number of months on probation. If a sentence of probation includes a term of incarceration (Probation/SIS Plus), the Order has a section for entering the amount of incarceration time in either days or months. SIS: This option is to be used when the offender is placed on Suspended Imposition of Sentence. If a sentence of SIS includes a term of incarceration (Probation/SIS Plus), the Order has a section for entering the amount of incarceration time in either days or months. Other: This option is to be used when an offender receives a sentence of Life, Life Without Parole (LWOP), or Death. If the offender receives a death sentence, enter the execution date pronounced in court in the Sentence Options section.

From 1973-2009-- prison pop.

From 1973 to 2009, the state and federal prison populations that are the main focus rose steadily, from about 200,000 to 1.5 million, declining slightly in the following 4 years.

Supporters of three-strikes laws argue that sending repeat offenders to prison for life is justified if it keeps dangerous criminals off the street. This represents which idea?

General deterrence

How did the growth in incarceration differ among states, or by region? Does it vary over time (i.e., Was growth faster or slower at different times in different parts of the country?)

Growth, overall in all regions, (South, West, Midwest, & North) was extremely faster, larger, and more prevalent from 1972-2000. The South during this time coming out at the fastest growing- going from 100 to almost 800 rate of change in incarceration rates. The West was the second highest. The Midwest, and then the North. From the 2000-2010-- everything slowed down, with a stand-still rate of change across the board. The West and Midwest a little less scattered across states, with the South and North states being scattered

Explaining Growth in Imprisonment— The million dollar question: What changed?

If not crime, then what was it? Ch. 2— breaks down into 4 diff. stages/areas. (look at notes in notebook). 1. Greater enforcement (arrests per crime) 2. "Sentencing" (severity of punishment— prison commitments per arrest). 3. Length of stay in prison 4. Post-prison (parole violations— returned for tech. violations)

Presumptive Sentencing Guidelines

In 1978, Minnesota enacted legislation to create a specialized administrative agency—a sentencing commission—with authority to promote presumptive sentencing guidelines. Judges were required to provide reasons for sentences not indicated in the guidelines; the adequacy of those reasons could be appealed to higher courts. Minnesota's guidelines took effect in 1980. Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington created similar systems in the 1980s. Evaluations showed that well-designed and -implemented presumptive guidelines made sentencing more predictable, reduced racial and other unwarranted disparities, facilitated systems planning, and controlled correctional spending. Kansas, North Carolina, and Ohio created similar systems. The Minnesota, North Carolina, and Washington commissions operated under "population constraint" policies; the aim was to ensure that the number of inmates sentenced to prison would not exceed the capacity of state prisons to hold them. The population constraint policies worked. During the periods when they were in effect, those states experienced prison population growth well below national averages. The primary policy goal of the early presumptive guideline systems was to reduce disparities and unfairness. More generally, presumptive sentencing guidelines fell from favor. The three most recent presumptive guideline systems—those of Kansas, North Carolina, and Ohio (abandoned in 2006)—were established in the mid1990s. A few voluntary systems have been developed since then. A number of studies have concluded that sentencing guidelines, especially with population constraints, help control the size of the prison population-- analyzed state sentencing patterns in the period 1975-2002 and concluded that states that adopted presumptive guidelines and abolished parole release had lower incarceration and prison population growth rates than other states. Presumptive sentencing guidelines developed by a sentencing commission are the most promising means available to jurisdictions that want to reduce or avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, improve budgetary and policy planning, or both. The well-documented successes of the Minnesota, Oregon, and Washington guidelines in the 1980s and of the North Carolina guidelines since their promulgation in 1994 show that both sets of goals are attainable.

1970's policy changes-

In the 1970s, the numbers of arrests and court caseloads increased, and prosecutors and judges became harsher in their charging and sentencing. --arrest rates for drug crimes climbed

THE IMPACT OF "THREESTRIKES" LAWS

In certain states the adoption of "three strikes and you're out" laws has significantly expanded the number of individuals sentenced to life. California maintains a quarter (25.2%) of the nation's life-sentenced population. Twenty-two percent (8,914 of the 40,362 lifers) are serving life sentences because of the state's notoriously tough Three-Strikes law.34 This law, enacted in 1994, mandated a life sentence with the possibility of parole upon a third conviction but unlike other states, the third offense could be any felony, not necessarily a serious or violent one. While the law was passed with the promise that it would take persons convicted of serious and violent offenses off the streets, in reality fewer than half of the individuals sentenced under the law had been convicted of a violent offense as their third strike. Fifty-five percent were convicted of a nonviolent offense, including 16% for a drug offense and 30% for a property crime.35 Passage of Proposition 36 in 2012 changed the law by narrowing the scope of eligible offenses.36 Because reform to the law applies retroactively, as many as 3,000 prisoners serving life sentences qualify to be resentenced. Although the three-strikes structure in California receives attention for its severity, the state is not alone in adopting habitual offender laws that result in life or LWOP upon a second or third conviction. Life without parole is a mandatory sentence upon conviction under three strikes laws in 13 states and the federal government.38 In some states, the impact of these laws on the life-sentenced population is profound. In Washington, for instance, two-thirds of the people serving parole-ineligible life sentences have been sentenced under the state's three strikes law which went into effect in 1994.

In communities of concentrated disadvantage—

In communities of concentrated disadvantage—characterized by high rates of poverty, violent crime, mental illness and drug addiction— the United States embarked on a massive and unique intensification of criminal punishment.

1980's policy changes-

In the 1980s, convicted defendants became more likely to serve prison time. More than 1/2 of the growth in state imprisonment during this period was driven by the increased likelihood of incarceration given an arrest. --mandatory prison time for drug offenses became more common. U.S. Congress and most state legislatures enacted laws mandating lengthy prison sentences—often of 5, 10, and 20 years or longer—for drug offenses, violent offenses, and "career criminals."

How are these ideological positions relevant to understanding the increase in the prison population?

In the past, up to the majority of perspectives today, crime and the response to crime has been (for the most part) consistent with more of the classical/conservative view, of more severe punishment and black/white right/wrong to reduce crime and lead to high incarceration rates. however, the industrialized Western world has challenged classical view with: the positivist rehabilitative ideal that has dominated criminal justice police thruout the past century. Legacy of positivists includes the indeterminate sentence, probation & parole, the reformatory, and the juvenile justice system. Yet, more correctly put-- our criminal justice and correctional apparatus represents a combo of classical & positivist principles. And most recently, positivist assumptions/policies have been giving way to a resurgence of classical thought in U.S.-- and it is obvious that this liberal ideological shift will have profound effects on the structure and function of the criminal justice system in years to come.

Incapacitation, Deterrence, and Length of Stay:

Incapacitation: Reducing current criminal involvement by holding offenders in prison where they cannot commit crimes against the public. Deterrence: Reducing the likelihood of future criminal involvement by increasing the punishment for the current offense. There are two methods by which increasing time spent in prison could impact public safety: incapacitation and deterrence. Incapacitation is a guaranteed method of ensuring an individual offender does not commit additional crimes. However, incarcerating people comes at substantial cost and the number of crimes averted by locking someone up will vary greatly by offender and offense type. Deterrence, on the other hand, is a theory rather than a guarantee. Deterrence theory suggests that offenders who are punished more harshly are less likely to commit crimes in the future because they will want to avoid the prospect of repeat punishment. The interaction between length of stay (LOS) and incapacitation and/or deterrence is complex. An increase in LOS will obviously result in an offender being incapacitated longer, but the additional weeks or months may be associated with a diminishing beneficial impact on crime rates. Additional time served also may be related to a declining deterrent effect and, in some cases, actually could contribute to criminal offending after release. This dynamic is the foundation of the argument that prisons are "schools of crime."29 Thus, the return on investment becomes questionable. This underscores the need to subject LOS to a rigorous analysis, paying particular attention to key offender characteristics that may be correlated with an increased risk of re-offending

Incarceration rates-- women vs. men:

Incarceration rates have increased more rapidly for females than for males since the early 1970s. In 1972, the prison and jail incarceration rate for men was estimated to be 24x higher than that for women. By 2010, men's incarceration rate was about 11x higher. Women's incarceration rate had thus risen twice as rapidly as men's in the period of growing incarceration rates. Yet despite the rapid growth in women's incarceration, only 7% of all sentenced state and federal prisoners were female by 2011. In comparison, 13% of local jail populations were women by that year. The racial disparity in incarceration for women is similar to that seen for men. As with the trends for men, the very high rate of incarceration for African American women fell relative to the rate for white women, although the 3 to 1 black-white disparity in women's imprisonment in 2009 was still substantial

NRC states "the very high rates of incarceration that emerged over the past decades cannot simply be ascribed to a higher level of crime today compared with the early 1970s, when the prison boom began. (p.47)." Explain this. Why do they conclude that crime is not the main cause? Note: This question is about the relationship between the crime rate and the imprisonment rate, it is NOT about the factors other than crime that might affect the prison population.

Incarceration trends do not simply track trends in crime, although trends in crime have clearly been an important part of the context in which incarceration rates have grown. In the context of the U.S. prison boom, the main limitation of the decomposition analysis concerns the treatment of drug crimes. Drug crimes (incidents of possession, sale, and manufacture) are not recorded in crime statistics. In any case, the level of drug arrests depends significantly on the level of enforcement efforts. For drug offenses, then, one can see how penal policy has changed, but analysis cannot specify the contribution of drug crime to the drug-related incarceration rate, only to drug arrests. Trends in drug arrests followed a different pattern. The drug arrest rate grew very sharply in the 1980s, more than doubling from 1980 to 1989. After a 2-year decline, the drug arrest rate again increased over the next decade, and by 2010 was more than double its level in 1980. In summary, the growth in incarceration rates beginning in 1973 was preceded for about a decade by a very large increase in crime rates. Incarceration rates showed their strongest period of growth in the 1980s, as violent crime fell through the first half of the decade and then increased in the second. Incarceration rates continued to climb through the 1990s as the violent crime rate began to fall. Finally, in the 2000s, crime rates have remained stable at a low level, while the incarceration rate peaked in 2007, and the incarcerated population peaked in 2010. Thus the very high rates of incarceration that emerged over the past decades cannot simply be ascribed to a higher level of crime today compared with the early 1970s, when the prison boom began.

Overcrowding

Increased rates of incarceration have been accompanied by overcrowding and decreased opportunity for rehabilitative programs, as well as a growing burden on medical and mental health services. Many state prisons and the Federal Bureau of Prisons operate at or above 100% of their designed capacity. surprisingly, as rates rose, number of riots and homicides within prison declined. yet, as rates rose, poor consequences for health/behavior & increased risk of suicide

The system of ordering "open ended" prison sentences, with the release date decided by a parole board, is called:

Indeterminate sentencing

Indeterminate sentences (Review)

Indeterminate sentencing is a system of sentencing in which a legislature establishes maximum and minimum terms for each crime and a judge makes a discretionary decision as to what the maximum and minimum sentences should be for each convicted offender. For those whose sentence is prison, a parole board determines the amount of time each inmate serves under correctional supervision. The theory behind indeterminate‐sentencing statutes is rehabilitation—the sentence should meet the needs of the individual offender, and the offender should be locked up until there is evidence that he or she has been "cured." In states with indeterminate sentencing, parole boards can release inmates once they have served the minimum part of their sentences. Good‐time laws further reduce the amount of time served. Good time reduces a portion of an offender's sentence for good behavior while in prison.

Sentence Departures:

Judges allowed to sentence outside the guidelines— must provide reasons/justifications (cannot be something that is an element of the crime)— ex. Is "the vulnerable victim"; or something to "mitigate the sentence"- the offender's role in the crime wasn't of the lead involvement- used when secondary/peripheral role in the crime. Or amount of harm- vulnerability- most common reasons given for this are 1. None 2. Plea bargain 3. "interest of justice". (reason for less severe sentence) Sentence departures are almost never appealed bc not reviewable.

In their criticisms of indeterminate sentencing, liberal and conservative reformers agree on one key principle. What was it?

Judges and parole boards had too much discretion.

AR: . JUDICIAL TRANSFER V. PROBATION/SIS PLUS: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

Judicial Transfer • An offender is sentenced to ADC but transferred via court order (the Sentencing Order) to serve his/her sentence at an ACC center. • Jurisdiction cedes to ADC upon sentencing. • If an offender receives a 72 month sentence and receives day for day meritorious good time, he/she will serve 36 months, which is the maximum an offender can serve in an ACC center. [As amended by Section 2 of Act 423 of 2017.] • If an offender becomes ineligible to remain in an ACC facility, he/she is transferred to an ADC facility via an administrative hearing through the Arkansas Parole Board. If the reason for transfer is due to disciplinary reasons, transfer eligibility remains the same as if in ACC (1/2 of the sentence). If the reason for transfer is due to administrative reasons, transfer eligibility is the same as if originally sentenced to ADC (1/3 or 1/2 less good time). • The release authority is the Arkansas Parole Board. Pursuant to A.C.A. § 12-12-127(c), offenders sentenced via judicial transfer are eligible for parole after serving a minimum of 180 days incarceration and successful completion of the therapeutic program. Probation/SIS Plus • Probation/SIS Plus is when an offender is sentenced to probation or SIS with a period of confinement as a condition of the probation. • Jurisdiction remains with the Sentencing Court. • Maximum time of confinement in an ACC facility is 365 days with no good time credits awarded. See A.C.A. § 5-4-304. • If an offender becomes ineligible for confinement in an ACC facility, he/she is returned to the Sentencing Court for re-sentencing, which could include possible probation revocation. • The release authority is the Sentencing Court. ACC regularly reports to the courts on the offender's progress and the court has the option to amend the length of the incarceration time.

How is being sentenced to prison for "Life" different from "Life without parole" (LWOP)?

Life sentences in America today stand at an unprecedented level: as of 2012, 159,520 people in prison were serving a life sentence and 49,081 (30.8%) of them have no possibility for parole. Nationally, one in every nine people in prison today is serving a life sentence.10 Though LWOP is available in nearly every state,11 such prisoners are disproportionately represented in Florida, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, California, and Michigan. Combined, these five states account for over half (57.7%) of all LWOP sentences nationwide. In seven states—Alabama, California, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Utah, and Washington—more than 15% of the prison population is sentenced to life.12 Additionally, in 22 states and the federal government, at least 35% of the lifer population is ineligible for parole.13 Despite a shift toward determinate sentencing in recent decades, many states maintain some form of indeterminate sentencing framework that is applied to parole-eligible lifers. Offenders who fall within this structure can potentially earn parole within a range of years; in some states, these ranges include an upper limit of natural life. The large number of parole-eligible lifers in some of these states may partially be explained by indeterminate sentencing structures that allow for a maximum term of life and a minimum term as short as five years. Regardless of whether a state has an indeterminate or determinate sentencing structure, excessively long sentences are available and used with increasing regularity. However, the alternative is also true: sentencing reforms that reflect fairness, proportionality, and a realistic opportunity for release can be incorporated into either a determinate sentencing structure or one that relies on a range of years to allow for individual tailoring

Why did the number of prisoners serving life or LWOP increase, even after crime rates, including murder, decreased? What percentage of people serving life sentences were convicted of homicide? What other kinds of crimes result in life sentences (if not homicide)?

Life sentences were originally limited to those convicted of only the most serious crimes, such as homicide, particularly as an alternative to the death penalty, but their use has expanded considerably over time to include a greater range of offenses.17 While homicide remains the offense for which a majority of lifers are sentenced, life sentences are today authorized for assault, robbery, sex-related crimes, drug offenses, and even some property offenses. In our survey of state corrections agencies, we requested information about the crime of commitment for each person serving a life sentence. 18 Overall, 64.3% (87,933) of those serving a life sentence had been convicted of a homicide. However, it is notable that more than 10,000 people serving life sentences have been convicted of a nonviolent crime, including more than 2,500 for a drug offense and 5,400 for a property crime. In eight states, more than 30% of the life without parole population has been convicted of a non-homicide offense. In Oklahoma, which has the third highest rate of incarceration in the nation and where 27% of the prisoners overall have been convicted of a drug offense, 6.4% of the LWOP inmates are drug offenders. This relatively high percentage of prisoners serving LWOP for a nonviolent offense is likely due to the state's especially harsh drug laws that require a life-without-parole-sentence for anyone with two previous felony convictions.

Mandatory Minimums & Three Strikes Laws

Mandatory minimum sentence and three strikes laws have little or no effect on crime rates, shift sentencing power from judges to prosecutors, often result in the imposition of sentences that practitioners believe to be unjustly severe. By 1994, every state had adopted mandatory minimum sentences; most had several. Mandatory minimum sentences apply primarily to drug offenses, murder, aggravated rape, felonies involving firearms, and felonies committed by people who have previous felony convictions. Their ostensible primary rationale is deterrence. The overwhelming weight of the evidence, however, shows that they have few if any deterrent effects. Three-strikes laws impose longer prison terms than earlier mandatory minimum sentencing laws. For example, California's three-strikes law requires that offenders who are convicted of a violent crime, and who have had two prior convictions, serve a minimum of 25 years; the law also doubles prison terms for offenders convicted of a second violent felony. Three-strikes laws vary in breadth. For example, some stipulate that both of the prior convictions and the current offense be violent felonies; others require only that the prior felonies be violent. Some three-strikes laws count only prior adult violent felony convictions, while others permit consideration of juvenile adjudications for violent crimes. A second frequently mentioned mandatory sentencing enhancement is "truth-in-sentencing," provisions for which are in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. States that wish to qualify for Federal aid under the Act are required to amend their laws so that imprisoned offenders serve at least 85 percent of their sentences

Rationale for mandatory sentencing

Mandatory sentences are based on two goals—deterrence and incapacitation. The primary purposes of modest mandatory prison terms (e.g., 3 years for armed robbery) are specific deterrence, which applies to already sanctioned offenders, and general deterrence, which aims to deter prospective offenders. If the law successfully increases the imprisonment rate, the effects of incapacitation also will grow because fewer offenders will be free to victimize the population at large. The intent of three-strikes (and even two-strikes) is to incapacitate selected violent offenders for very long terms—25 years or even life. They have no specific deterrent effect if those confined will never be released, but their general deterrent effect could, in theory, be substantial. By passing mandatory sentencing laws, legislators convey the message that certain crimes are deemed especially grave and that people who commit them deserve, and may expect, harsh sanctions. These laws are a rapid and visible response to public outcries following heinous or well-publicized crimes. The high long-term costs of mandatory sentencing are deferred because the difficult funding choices implicit in this policy can be delayed or even avoided. Yet--- • Pursue presumptive rather than mandatory sentences. Presumptive sentences, which are developed by sentencing commissions and set forth as guidelines, can shift overall sentencing patterns in ways acceptable to policymakers. For example, they can seek to imprison more violent offenders and fewer property offenders. A sentencing commission can help maintain sentencing policy while still preserving ultimate legislative control. Presumptive sentences have generally achieved their intended goals, and research shows high rates of conformity to the sentences by judges.

How does LOS affect future offending? What evidence is there that states could reduce their prison populations without increasing crime rates, as the report suggests?

Modeling future criminal offending using past arrest history and other factors permits an estimation of the impact of reducing LOS on public safety. The analysis found that a significant portion of the state prison populations could have been released sooner with no impact on public safety. Looking at only non-violent offenders, 14 percent of the Florida release cohort, 18 percent of the Maryland cohort, and 24 percent of the Michigan cohort could have been safely released after serving between three months and two years less time behind bars. If the offenders in this analysis had been released on the schedule the model suggests, the prison populations would have been reduced by 2,640 in Florida, 770 in Maryland, and 3,280 in Michigan. Based on the 2004 populations as estimated from the size of the current release cohort and its average LOS, these reductions amount to nearly 3 percent of the average daily population for Florida, 5 percent for Maryland, and 6 percent for Michigan. However these numbers are predicted to be quite small, with 8 to 11 percent of each group of non-violent offenders rearrested in this time. Among the offenders suggested for release by the model, 1 to 2 percent would be rearrested for violent crimes, accounting for 0.04 percent of all violent crimes in Florida and Maryland and 0.2 percent of violent crimes in Michigan. If large numbers of inmates could serve shorter terms with little or no impact on public safety, policy makers would be wise to subject time served in their states to a rigorous analysis, focusing on identifying levels of time served that maximize crime prevention. The research in this study underscores that there is a point when offenders become a low risk for release and more time served does not result in additional crimes prevented through either incapacitation or deterrence. At that point, greater time served begins to provide diminishing returns in crimes prevented at a substantial cost to taxpayers.

NRC uses the Blumstein and Beck method to "decompose" the growth in incarceration into 4 main components; what are they, and which ones had the greatest impact on the incarceration rate?

One can think of the size of the prison population as depending on the level of crime, the probability of arrest given a crime, the probability of a prison admission given an arrest, and the time served in prison. Each step in the process of incarceration influences the overall trend, decomposing the growth in the penal population from 1980 to 2010 into components related to: --contribution of crime --the rate of arrests per crime --the chances of prison admission per arrest (impact on increase in incarceration rate). --the length of time served (impact on increase in incarceration rate).

AR: Four Levels of Release Eligibility

One of the duties of the Commission is to establish transfer eligibility for offenses. The Commission has set the transfer eligibility line between seriousness levels six and seven. Offenders sentenced to a term of incarceration for offenses above the line must serve one-half of their sentence before they are eligible for transfer. Offenders sentenced for offenses below the line must serve one-third of their sentence before they are eligible for transfer. Also, there are two statutory overrides which affect transfer eligibility. The four levels of transfer eligibility are listed below One-Half One-Third 100% Time Served - Statutory Override 70% Parole Eligibility - Statutory Override (Please note: Act 570 of 2011 removed Possession of drug paraphernalia with the purpose to manufacture methamphetamine, now codified at A.C.A. § 5-64-443(b), from 70% parole eligibility. Offenders sentenced under the former § 5-64-403(c)(5) are still subject to 70% parole eligibility. Only the methamphetamine offenses are subject to meritorious good time credits. However, in no event shall the time served by any person who is found guilty of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to one of these methamphetamine offenses be reduced to less than 50% of the person's sentence. ADC time computation cards will still reflect 70% transfer eligibility status, but the transfer eligibility date will be calculated on the projected earned good time. Offenders sentenced to CCC via judicial transfer for drug related crimes that are target offenses are still subject to 70% parole eligibility with good time that will not reduce time served to less than 50% of their original sentence. See A.C.A. § 16-93-618 and the former A.C.A. § 16-93-611.)

Parole- impact

Parole agencies typically supervise people who have served part of their sentence in prison and have been released back to the community, subject to such conditions as reporting to a parole officer, staying drug-free, and maintaining employment. Therefore, parole supervision can be expected to increase as its source, the numbers in prison, grows. From 1975 to 2010, the population under parole supervision grew by a factor of six, from 143,000 to 841,000. In 2012, it stood at 851,000. In recent decades, an increasing proportion of all state prison admissions have been due to parole violations. As a proportion of all state prison admissions, returning parolees made up about 20% in 1980, rising to 30% by 1991 and remaining between 30% and 40% until 2010. This represents a significant shift in the way the criminal justice system handled criminal offenses, increasing reliance on imprisonment rather than other forms of punishment, supervision, or reintegration. Parole may be revoked for committing a new crime or for violating the conditions of supervision without any new criminal conduct ("technical violators"), or someone on parole may be charged with a new crime and receive a new sentence. The rising numbers of parole violations contributed to the increase in incarceration rates. The number of parole violators admitted to state prison following new convictions and sentences has remained relatively constant since the early 1990s. The number of technical violators more than doubled from 1990 to 2000. In 2010, the approximately 130,000 people re-incarcerated after parole had been revoked for technical violations accounted for about 20% of state admissions

Parole Guidelines

Parole guidelines were the first major policy initiative of the sentencing reform movement. Sought to increase procedural fairness through the publication of release standards, reductions in disparities in time served by those convicted of comparable crimes, and the linking of release decisions in part to empirical evidence on prisoners' probabilities of subsequent offending. Were abandoned & replaced in 1980's by presumptive sentencing guidelines despite evidence of the guideline's effectiveness when implemented in improving consistency in the setting of release dates & in time served for similar offenses. Advantages of parole guidelines: --can make case-by-case decision making within a well-run administrative agency faster, less costly, and more easily reviewable than decisions made by judges --as commonly happened during the indeterminate sentencing era, parole boards can address prison overcrowding problems by adjusting release dates. A major disadvantage: parole boards have authority only over those sentenced to imprisonment. Parole guidelines can reduce unwarranted sentence-length disparities among prisoners, but not between them and others sentenced to local jails or community punishments.

What were the main policies enacted during each phase of reform? How do these policies reflect the reformers' stated goals and the principles they emphasized (e.g., if the goal was to increase deterrence, how do the policies attempt to do that)?

Phase I: Changes Aimed at Increased Consistency and Fairness= --Parole Guidelines --Voluntary Sentencing Guidelines --Determinate Sentencing Laws --Presumptive Sentencing Guidelines Phase II: Changes Aimed at Increased Certainty and Severity= --Truth-in-Sentencing Laws --Mandatory Minimum Sentence and Three Strikes Laws

Conservative ideology/crime

Places primary emphasis on the importance of maintaining social order-- conservatism concerns more directed toward protecting society than toward aiding the offender. Yet, assumes that the existing social arrangements are basically sound and reflect widespread consensus among the members of society-- meaning the offender is the one "out of step" with the rest of society. --abstain from rapid social change; preserve traditional institutions --the sources of crime found in the erosion of discipline and respect for authority, coupled with an increase in free-willy attitudes and practices thruout society --individuals are responsible for their own actions--good or bad. self-reliance and individual achievement encouraged. --lack of faith in gov't to serve individual/social problems-- focus on punishment rather than rehab as proper goal of criminal justice system. --system goals which focus on protection of innocent citizens are of primary importance (deterrence and incapacitation) --sympathy towards victim of crime--the guilty should never go free and punishments should become more certain/severe in order to help reduce crime.

AR: Departure Reasons:

Please refer to the departure reasons on the Sentencing Order for the specific numbers to cite. For aggravating reasons, "Other" is now number 17 and for mitigating reasons, "Other" is now number 9. Act 423 of 2017 requires a "thorough recitation of the facts" in the event of a departure. Using one of the enumerated departure reasons satisfies this requirement. However, if you use "other" please indicate the actual reason for departure.

U.S. Sentencing Reform (1970s to 2000s) IV. Reform Wave 3: "Tough on Crime" (mid-1980s to 1996; all states & fed)

Policies specifically designed to increase severity of punishment for certain crimes & offenders: • Violence; sex offenses • Weapons • Drugs • Repeat offenders Almost all still in effect; seldom repealed Emphasize "Crime Control" (Incapacitation, Deterrence) A. "Mandatory minimums" Mandatory prison term for certain crimes & offenders - one or more adopted in every state - typically defined narrowly E.g., sentence "enhancements" based on --Possessing a weapon (3 or 5 years in WA) --drug quantity (e.g., Fed Cocaine ) --"drug free zones" (e.g., "school zones, +2yrs in WA) B. "Three-strikes and you're out" (a type of Mandatory Min) --Mandatory prison, range from 20yrs to LWOP --If convicted of a third qualifying offense (i.e., a "strike") --Most states limit to violent crimes (25 states & Fed adopted between 1993 & 1995) C. "Truth in Sentencing" (TIS) Require a min % of sentence to be in prison. -intended to increase time served Federal Crime bill (1994) --Provided $ for state prison construction --Violent offenders must serve 85% By 1999 42 states had "TIS" laws • 27 required 85% • 15 require less than 85% (e.g., 50% or 70%)

Incapacitation:

Prevent crime by "controlling" offenders. (Utilitarian, but not concerned about the person being punished) A. Assumptions 1. *Chronic offenders* commit most crime, & will continue. a) 6-7% account for 1/2 of arrests (Wolfgang et al.) b) 1/2 of ex-prisoners returned to prison within 5 years 2. Imprisoning chronic offenders will reduce crime --prison for ppl who are *not* likely to commit serious crime in the future is inefficient, and will have little effect on the crime rate.

Understanding Sentencing Guidelines: Sentencing guidelines are a set of standards that are generally put in place to establish rational and consistent sentencing practices within a particular jurisdiction. To better understand sentencing guidelines, it is important to understand a little bit about what preceded them.

Prior to the creation and development of sentencing guidelines, all states had a system of indeterminate sentencing. Under that system, the legislature defined criminal conduct and established high maximum sentences. Judges had almost complete discretion to impose any sentence up to the statutory maximum, and rather than pronounce a sentence with a specified prison term, the court would pronounce a range of time (e.g., 0-10 years). Parole boards had broad discretion to determine how much of any prison sentence had to be served. Indeterminate sentencing then, was a system in which the sentence was not fixed; rather it was subject to discretion at many points such that the true sentence could not be known until it had been fully served. Moreover, sentences for similarly situation offenders could vary. In the 1970s, many states began moving towards a system of determinate sentencing. Determinate sentencing means that the sentence is a fixed term. It is either not subject to discretion or is subject to a lesser degree of discretion than under indeterminate sentencing. For example, in Minnesota, the Guidelines establish the presumptive prison range, and state law requires that offenders serve two-thirds of the pronounced prison term in prison and one-third on post-prison supervised release, subject to any disciplinary infractions while in prison.1 Thus, in a determinate sentencing system like this, both the offender and victim have a good idea of how much time the offender will actually serve when the sentence is pronounced. Sentencing guidelines are one mechanism that can be used to implement determinate sentencing. Sentencing guidelines are a system of recommended sentences based upon offense and offender characteristics. Offense Characteristics: Most guidelines systems have rules for ranking the seriousness of offenses. This ranking is typically based on how the crime is defined by the legislature, not on how a particular offender committed a particular crime. For example, theft of an unoccupied building would be ranked as less serious than assault with a weapon. Offender Characteristics: Offender characteristics are things that are unique to a particular offender. Examples include the number and type of prior offenses (i.e., felonies, misdemeanors, juvenile adjudications) or whether the offender was under a custody status at the time of the offense (e.g., probation or jail). The offense and offender characteristics are then placed on a sentencing grid or are assigned points on a worksheet, and the recommended sentence is derived from those sources.

AR: Early Release Offenders are generally kept until their transfer eligibility date. There are some exceptions that may allow for early release, including:

Prison Overcrowding Emergency Powers Act (EPA) ; Parole Alternative for Terminally Ill or Permanently Incapacitated Inmates ; Parole Alternatives for Electronic Monitoring of Parolees (120 days)

How much did the average time served, or "length of stay" (LOS), in prison increase between 1990 and 2009 in the U.S.? How does the change in LOS differ by offense type?

Prison populations rise and fall according to two principal forces: 1) how many offenders are admitted to prison, and 2) how long those offenders remain behind bars. --offenders released in 2009 served an average of almost three years in custody, nine months or 36 percent longer than offenders released in 1990. For offenders released from their original commitment in 2009 alone, the additional time behind bars cost states over $10 billion, with more than half of this cost attributable to nonviolent offenders. The growth in time served was remarkably similar across crime types. Offenders released in 2009 served: nFor drug crimes: 2.2 years, up from 1.6 years in 1990 (a 36 percent increase) ; For property crimes: 2.3 years up from 1.8 years in 1990 (a 24 percent increase) ; For violent crimes: 5.0 years up from 3.7 years in 1990 (a 37 percent increase) "Average LOS" measures the average time spent in custody for offenders released in a certain time period, usually one calendar year. A second measure we call "expected LOS" looks at the inmates in prison during a given year and estimates how long those inmates are likely to spend in custody based on what percentage of the population exits prison in that year. The expected LOS will differ from the average LOS if sentencing and release policies are changing and inmates admitted more recently will be serving shorter or longer terms than their predecessors. --the average LOS for offenders released from prison in reporting states rose by 36 percent between 1990 and 2009

Probation- impact

Probation usually supervises people in the community who can, following revocation for breach of conditions, be re-sentenced to prison or jail. Like the incarcerated population, the probation population increased greatly in absolute terms, from 923,000 in 1976 to 4.06 million in 2010, declining slightly to 3.94 million in 2012. The large probation and parole populations also expand a significant point of entry into incarceration. If probationers or parolees violate the conditions of their supervision, they risk revocation and subsequent incarceration.

Proportionality

Proportionality has been a requirement of every mainstream normative theory of punishment since the Enlightenment. Retributivists, who believe that those who commit offenses deserve to be punished for moral reasons, also believe that punishments must be proportional to the seriousness of crimes. As an idea and as a term of art, proportionality is commonly associated with retributivist views.12 Proportionality, however, is not just a retributive value. Some form of proportionality is a major component of all mainstream theories of punishment. Consequentialists, who believe that punishments can be justified by their crime prevention or other good effects, also endorse a conception of proportionality. They typically believe that punishment can be justified if the suffering imposed on a convicted individual prevents greater suffering by others. Thus for consequentialists, punishments should be proportional to the good effects they will produce. Punishments more severe than is necessary to achieve those effects waste public resources and impose suffering for no good purpose. Many sentences mandated and imposed under current laws are neither proportionate nor justifiable in terms of their preventive effects. Some three strikes laws—for example, California's—mandate lengthier sentences for some property and drug offenses than are required for violent offenses. These laws violate retributive ideas about proportionality; few people believe property and drug crimes, even when repeated, are more serious than violence. These laws also fail consequentialist tests. If the goal is deterrence, then it makes little sense to threaten harsher penalties for theft or a small-scale drug sale than for rape; to do so implies that rape is a less serious offense. If the goal is incapacitation, then it makes little sense to protect the community by confining those convicted of drug or property offenses longer than those convicted of violent ones. If the goal is rehabilitation, then it makes little sense to use longer prison terms and incur greater expense to treat those convicted of property offenses compared with those convicted of violent offenses. If the goal is reinforcing norms, clarifying values, or reassuring the public, then it makes little sense to undermine norms and obfuscate values by suggesting that theft is more serious than rape, or to imagine that such perverse messages will reassure the public. We have summarized these principles to provide a normative framework for thinking about the policies that led to high rates of incarceration in the United States. In the committee's view, many of the nation's policy decisions that have contributed to high rates of incarceration are inconsistent with the principles of parsimony and proportionality.

Why did we change policies?

Public outcry/demand— part of the answer; we became more punitive/ppl expected the punishment. Politics- crime/criminal justice policy became highly political topic.— strategy; ideology } ^^The role of ideology- generally, a set of beliefs/worldview that shapes ppl's policy preferences. beliefs ab human nature/behavior— hand in hand w beliefs ab the causes of crime— influences ppl's perspectives of how we respond to it (crime). role of gov't vs. individuals + community/family. beliefs ab human nature + crime— conservatives (individual responsibility- choice, rational actors- gov't doesn't need to step in, community not responsible; the cause of crime is criminals. Response to crime= increase punishment- "more certain + severe") vs. liberals (social structure- "causes" crime- community conditions are important; individual needs- lack of skills/education/chemical dependences/psychological needs. Response to crime= affecting the causes and an emphases on rehabilitation— to fix those things.) Media coverage The country took a more conservative turn in the '80's.

AR: What is the Sentencing Order and what does it do?

Pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order Number 8 (Forms for Reporting Case Information in all Arkansas Trial Courts), where the final disposition results in a commitment to ADC, probation, suspended imposition of sentence, commitment to the ACC or to the county jail, a fine, restitution, and/or court costs, the office of the prosecuting attorney shall be responsible for completion of the Sentencing Order (Order), which shall be submitted to the circuit judge for signature, and filed in the Office of the Circuit Clerk. Where the case is dismissed or nolle prossed because of the speedy trial rule, the case is transferred, or the defendant is acquitted, the office of the prosecuting attorney shall be responsible for completion of the Reporting Form for Defense-Related Dispositions which shall be submitted to the circuit judge for signature and filed in the Office of the Circuit Clerk.

Deterrence:

Reduce crime through *threat* of punishment. A. Classical School (Beccaria, 1764) 1. Enlightenment philosophers --sought rational basis for law --the greatest good for the greatest number (utilitarian principle) 2. Punishment is justified if (a) it *reduces harm & suffering* AND (b) it is *deserved*. --excessive punishment is tyrannical --punishment simply to cause suffering is unjust (this includes punishment for retribution alone) 3. Crime is a Rational Choice a) Free will-- we control our actions b) Rationality-- we weigh costs & benefits c) Hedonism-- we seek pleasure & avoid pain 4. Deterrence requires: a) *Certainty* (expected, predictable) b) Severity (enough to outweigh the benefits) c) Celerity (swiftness) *Rational actors will choose not to commit crime* *Certainty is more important than severity* d) severity = proportionality --not punishment "in kind"/"eye for an eye" --no more than is necessary to deter ("Parsimony")

Presumptive Guidelines: Subject to appeal by the state* or the defendant*.

Release Decisions— Requirements: AR "Transfer"- Level 1-6; 1/3- good time. Total sentence= 6 yrs; Min. req./eligibility: 2 yrs.; Good time= 1 yr** (1 day: 1 day). Level 1-6= transfer is administrative (automatic/default) ; parole board can reject* transfer.

ARKANSAS PAROLE BOARD

The Arkansas Parole Board (the Board) is the release authority for persons convicted of discretionary felony offenses and sentenced to a term of incarceration in the ADC. The Board sets conditions for inmates convicted of nondiscretionary offenses sentenced to ACC and ADC. Parole eligibility procedures and standards of review are codified at A.C.A. §§ 16-93-615 through 16-93-619. The Board refers to the Prosecutor's Short Report for information on a case. Any information is helpful in making the decision to grant parole. Therefore, please include any information about the case, such as the facts of the crime and/or a brief history of an offender's opportunities at probation.

The Incarceration Rate— Imprisonment Rate—

The Incarceration Rate— "persons incarcerated per 100,000 residents" (jail or prison) (716 in 2011). Imprisonment Rate— "Persons in custody of state or federal prisons per 100,000 residents" (478 in 2011). (distinction is important^^^)

AR: When an Offender is a Detriment to the CommunityQ

The Parole Board may deny parole to any otherwise eligible person, regardless of the sentence that he or she is serving, if five (5) members of the Board determine that the person upon release would be a "detriment to the community" into which the person would be released. Detriment to the community is defined in A.C.A. § 16-93- 101(12).

U.S. penal population / incarceration rate:

The U.S. penal population of 2.2 million adults is the largest in the world. In 2012, close to 25% of the world's prisoners were held in American prisons, although the United States accounts for about 5% of the world's population. The U.S. rate of incarceration, with nearly 1 of every 100 adults in prison or jail, is 5 to 10x higher than rates in Western Europe and other democracies. The growth in incarceration rates in the United States over the past 40 years is historically unprecedented and internationally unique.

The best single proximate explanation of the rise in incarceration is..?

The best single proximate explanation of the rise in incarceration is not rising crime rates, but the policy choices made by legislators to greatly increase the use of imprisonment as a response to crime. Mandatory prison sentences, intensified enforcement of drug laws, and long sentences contributed not only to overall high rates of incarceration, but also especially to extraordinary rates of incarceration in black and Latino communities. Intensified enforcement of drug laws subjected blacks, more than whites, to new mandatory minimum sentences—despite lower levels of drug use and no higher demonstrated levels of trafficking among the black than the white population. Blacks had long been more likely than whites to be arrested for violence. But three strikes, truth-in-sentencing, and related laws have likely increased sentences and time served for blacks more than whites.

Liberal ideology/crime

The central goals of society should be individual rights and equal opportunity for all. See current social arrangements as imperfect in that certain economic and social inequities persist in society-- tho social structure not perfectible, improvements in direction of greater equality are possible. The state's programs can provide the means to improve the condition of its citizens. Fundamental assumption that crime's caused by structural conditions in society, not by the individual's calculation that crime pays. Long-term remedy for crime prob= fundamental social change. Favored short-term programs tend to focus on improving the situation of the offender as well as on reducing crime. Liberals have traditionally placed their faith in rehab as central goal of criminal justice. --"traditional liberals" argue the goal of treatment of offenders is being prematurely abandoned. --"justice model liberals" argue that the rehab ideal is bankrupt as a strategy for reducing crime. Both liberal camps tend to agree in their support of decriminalization of victimless offenses and of deinstitutionalization and expanded use of alternatives to incarceration.

Describe the growth in imprisonment rates by race and ethnicity, in both absolute and relative terms.

The disparity in incarceration can be measured in both absolute and relative terms. The absolute disparity is measured by the difference between black and white incarceration rates, while the relative disparity is measured by the black-white ratio in incarceration rates. Through the 1970s and 1980s, racial disparities increased in both absolute and relative terms. The increase in absolute disparities is especially striking, growing more than 3x from 1970 to 1986 for prison admission rates and more than doubling from 1980 to 1990 for imprisonment rates. The large increase in absolute disparities reflects the extraordinarily high rates of incarceration among African Americans that emerged with the overall growth of the incarceration rate. From 1990 onward, the white incarceration rate increased more rapidly than the incarceration rate for blacks, and the relative disparity declined. Still, the absolute disparity increased significantly in the 1990s as black incarceration rates continued to grow, and serving time in state or federal prison became commonplace for young African American men in poor communities.

1990's: Growth in pop. among- Federal prison, State prison, & Local jail

The federal prison pop. had a percentage increase of around 110%; the state prison pop. had a percentage increase of around 60%; the local jail pop. had a percentage increase of around 44%.

1980's: Growth in pop. among- Federal prison, State prison, & Local jail

The federal prison pop. had a percentage increase of around 120%; the state prison pop. had a percentage increase of around 108%; the local jail pop. had a percentage increase of around 110%.

1970's: Growth in pop. among- Federal prison, State prison, & Local jail

The federal prison pop. had a percentage increase of around 22%; the state prison pop. had a percentage increase of around 65%; the local jail pop. had a percentage increase of around 60%.

2000's: Growth in pop. among- Federal prison, State prison, & Local jail

The federal prison pop. had a percentage increase of around 44%; the state prison pop. had a percentage increase of around 10%; the local jail pop. had a percentage increase of around 20%.

Time Served

The final component of assessing the contribution of changes in criminal justice policy to the rise in incarceration rates is the duration of incarceration for those given prison sentences. Very long sentences have increased in number since the proliferation of enhancements for those convicted of second and third felonies, the institution of truth-in-sentencing requirements, and other shifts in sentencing policy. As of the end of 2000, BJS estimated that about 54,000 state prison inmates were serving life sentences, with a median age of under 30. The most dramatic change in average time served was for murder, which climbed from 5.0 years in 1981 to 16.9 years in 2000, an increase of 238%. The second largest growth was in time served for sexual assault, which increased 94%t, from 3.4 years in 1981 to 6.6 years in 2009; the rate of increase for this crime type was the largest observed during the 2000-2010 decade, adding about 2.5 months each year. The slowest rate of increase in time served was for drug offenses, increasing from 1.6 years in 1981 to 1.9 years in 2000 and then remaining nearly steady through 2009. The stability of time served by those committing drug offenses contrasts with the significant growth in rates of arrest and commitment for drug offenses. From 1980 to 2010, the state imprisonment rate for 6 main crime types grew by 222%. The growth can be attributed about equally to the 2 policy factors of prison commitments per arrest and increases in time served.****

When each decade is examined separately, different factors are found to contribute to the growth in incarceration rates.

The first decade, 1980- 1990, saw the largest increase in the state incarceration rate (107%). The largest share of this growth is attributable to changes in commitments per arrest, which accounted for 79% of the growth in the six-offense analysis and 50 percent when drug offenses were excluded. The time-served effect was fairly small (14%) when drug crimes were included but more than doubled (38%) when they were omitted. The significant growth in enforcement for drug-related offenses in the 1980s thus is associated with a large increase in prison admissions, but those convicted of drug offenses were serving relatively short sentences. During the second decade, the 1990s, when the state incarceration rate grew by 55% (from a much-enlarged base compared with 1980), considerable attention was paid to increasing sentences, and especially time served, through various legislative actions, such as truth-in-sentencing. This is shown by the fact that in the 1990s, time served replaced imprisonments per arrest as the leading factor in growth in incarceration rates, accounting for 74% of the growth for all 6 crimes and 62% when drug crimes are excluded. The final decade, 2000-2010, was a period of negligible growth (0.65%) in the overall incarceration rate in state prisons, and whatever growth occurred is attributable almost entirely to increases in imprisonments per arrest.

Trends in Arrests per Crime

The first point at which the criminal justice system can affect the incarceration rate is through the likelihood of arrest of someone who has committed a crime. The ratio of arrests to crimes is sometimes interpreted as a measure of policing effectiveness or efficiency. Despite significant changes in police technology and management from 1980 to 2010, the ratio of arrests to crimes for the major crime types handled by states and localities has shown little change. Murder is the exception, showing a decline in the arrest rate per crime after 2000: arrests for murder were close to 100 per 100 adult offenses until 1998 and then declined to 80 per 100 after 2000. Overall, by the measure of the ratio of arrests to crimes, no increase in policing effectiveness occurred from 1980 to 2010 that might explain higher rates of incarceration. A significant shortcoming of the accounting framework applied here is that the analysis cannot describe the probability that drug crimes—chiefly for possession, sale, and manufacture—are converted into arrests. In the early 1970s, when drug arrest rates were low, blacks were about twice as likely as whites to be arrested for drug crimes. The great growth in drug arrests through the 1980s had a large and disproportionate effect on African Americans. By 1989, arrest rates for blacks had climbed to 1,460 per 100,000, compared with 365 for whites. Throughout the 1990s, drug arrest rates remained at historically high levels. In short, the great escalation in drug enforcement that dates from the late 1970s is associated with an increase in the relative arrest rate among African Americans that is unrelated to relative rates of drug use and the limited available evidence on drug dealing.

Consequences- increase in incarceration

The increase in incarceration may have caused a decrease in crime, but the magnitude of the reduction is highly uncertain and the results of most studies suggest it was unlikely to have been large.

Deterrence effects?

The incremental deterrent effect of increases in lengthy prison sentences is modest at best. Because recidivism (the tendency of a convicted criminal to reoffend) rates decline markedly with age, lengthy prison sentences, unless they specifically target very high-rate or extremely dangerous offenders, are an inefficient approach to preventing crime by incapacitation.

According to the Classical School, who should determine how much punishment a particular crime receives?

The legislature-- not judge

Determinate Sentencing

The most influential reform proposals during this phase called for the abolition of parole release and the creation of enforceable standards to guide judges' decisions in individual cases and provide a basis for appellate review. Policy makers responded. Maine in 1975 abolished parole release and thereby became the first modern "determinate" sentencing state in the sense that the length of time to be served under a prison sentence could be known, or "determined," when it was imposed. California came second, enacting the Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act of 1976; the act abolished parole release and set forth recommended normal, aggravated, and mitigated sentences for most offenses. Other states—including Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, and North Carolina—quickly followed California's lead in enacting such laws. Evaluations concluded, however, that the laws had little if any effect on sentencing disparities. No additional states have created comprehensive statutory determinate sentencing systems since the mid-1980s.

When did most states begin allowing LWOP sentences, and what initially prompted this change? How many states use LWOP?

The notion of a whole-life sentence gained popularity starting with the ban on the death penalty which was in place from 1972 to 1976. Before the U.S. Supreme Court's decision striking down the death penalty in Furman v. Georgia, only seven states had life without parole statutes. Even though they were authorized, LWOP was infrequently used. Beginning in 1972, several states enacted or toughened their statutes regarding all life sentences, particularly broadening those pertaining to life without the possibility for parole. For instance, Illinois, Alabama, and Louisiana passed LWOP statutes in direct response to the Furman ruling. The rise in parole ineligible life sentences is increasing at a faster pace than for those serving life sentences with the chance for release. Over the past four years, there has been a 22.2% rise in life without parole sentences. The persistent growth in life sentences even during a period of declining rates of crime is likely to reflect two trends. First, more people are being admitted to prison with life and LWOP sentences. Second, those with parole-eligible life sentences are increasingly less likely to be released or, if they are, their release comes much later than similarly situated individuals in earlier decades. The reluctance to use the parole or clemency mechanisms is partly explained by the politicization of this procedure for release. In recent decades many candidates for political office and elected officials were eager to demonstrate how tough on crime they could be and often used their authority to grant or deny parole as an illustrative tool. Part of the problem is a public misconception that life sentences require whole-life imprisonment and that when a lifer is paroled, somehow the system has failed. The reality, however, is that most lifers have the opportunity for parole as part of their original sentence. (1971-1990= 26 states LWOP- including AR; 1991-2012= 17 states LWOP) --Pennsylvania, Louisiana, & Cali- highest LWOP- near 5,000 by 2012. --AR: close to 600 by 2012. --Least: TX, NY, NJ

Phase Two

The second phase, from the mid-1980s through 1996, aimed primarily to make sentences for drug and violent crimes harsher and their imposition more certain. The principal mechanisms to those ends were mandatory minimum sentence, three strikes, truth-in-sentencing, and life without possibility of parole laws. Mandatory minimum sentence laws required minimum prison terms for people convicted of particular crimes. Three strikes laws typically required minimum 25-year sentences for people convicted of a third felony. State truth-in-sentencing laws typically required that people sentenced to imprisonment for affected crimes serve at least 85% of their nominal sentences.

How did correctional supervision contribute to the growth in incarceration?

The significant increase in the number of people behind bars since 1972 occurred in parallel with the expansion of community corrections. Correctional supervision encompasses prisons and jails and also the community supervision of those on probation and parole. The overall correctional population—including probationers and parolees—has grown substantially since 1972. By 2010, slightly more than 7 million U.S. residents, 1 of every 33 adults, were incarcerated in prison or jail or were being supervised on parole or probation. At the end of 2012, the total was 6.94 million, or 1 of every 35 adults. The rise in incarceration rates should thus be understood as just part of a broad expansion of the criminal justice system into the lives of the U.S. population. For probation: 1975= 1,700 total correctional pop.; by 2010= 7,700. For parole: 1975= 700 total correctional pop.; by 2010= 3,100.

AR: What happens when there is a statutory override?

The statutory minimum or maximum ranges for a particular crime shall govern over a presumptive sentence if the presumptive sentence should fall below or above such ranges. See A.C.A. § 16-90-803(b)(3)(C). With the exception of DWI/BWI, a departure reason should be given for a statutory override that differs from the presumptive sentence. Please note: Aggravating departure reason number thirteen is "Statutory minimum sentence overrides the presumptive sentence."

Phase Three

The third phase, since the mid-1990s, has been a period of drift. The incentive to undertake comprehensive overhauls or make punishments substantially harsher has dissipated. No states have created new comprehensive sentencing systems, none has enacted new truth-in-sentencing laws, and only one has enacted a three strikes law. Mandatory minimum sentence laws have been enacted that target carjacking, human smuggling, and child pornography, but they are much more narrowly crafted than were their predecessors. According to annual reports issued by the National Conference of State Legislatures, several hundred state laws have been enacted since 2000 that in various ways make sentencing less rigid and less severe. Most of these laws are relatively minor and target less serious offenses.

CONCLUSION: The unprecedented rise in incarceration rates-

The unprecedented rise in incarceration rates can be attributed to an increasingly punitive political climate surrounding criminal justice policy formed in a period of rising crime and rapid social change. This provided the context for a series of policy choices —across all branches and levels of government—that significantly increased sentence lengths, required prison time for minor offenses, and intensified punishment for drug crimes.

Why Philosophies Matter:

These philosophies/rationales provide different answers to the questions "Why" and "How". Policy implications may conflict. A. What is the purpose of punishment? 1. Control crime (Utilitarian) 2. "Justice" or Moral Condemnation (Non-utilitarian) (A utilitarian approach would tend to limit a person's life circumstances as a sentencing factor.) B. What are we assuming? 1. about crime & human nature 2. morality of punishment 3. limits of gov't in a free society C. Policy implications? 1. What factors should determine one's punishment? -crime seriousness ? -criminal history ? -social status (sex, age, race, class) ? -risk/threat of future crime ? -causes/offender needs ? -other consequences/effects ? 2. Who should decide punishment? -Judges ? -Politicians +/or voters ? -Juries ? -Correctional officials ?

Life sentences

The upward creep in life sentences has accelerated in recent decades as an element of the "tough on crime" political environment that began in the 1980s. The idea of whole-life prison sentences easily won approval in a period of growing skepticism about the value of rehabilitation. Instead, punishment and incapacitation became identified as the primary goals of imprisonment and many abandoned the idea of reforming offenders. During this time policymakers and the public grew comfortable with the idea of putting people away for either long, discrete terms of years or simply for the rest of their lives. As fear of crime among the public and policymakers was crystallized by sensationalized media accounts of formerly incarcerated persons reoffending, the corrections system came to be accepted principally as a retributive tool. The broadened use of life sentences is a telling symbol of this transformation in corrections policy. Today, as diverse coalitions of lawmakers and stakeholders are engaged in meaningful discussions about the role of corrections, lifers continue to be largely excluded from the discussion of sentencing reform. Life-sentenced prisoners bear the ultimate burden of the decision in a number of states to either eliminate or seriously curtail the use of parole that started in the late 1970s. Six states—Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota—and the federal government eliminated parole entirely during this period; in these states all life-sentenced inmates spend the remainder of their lives in prison with no possibility for review or release.

The Positivist School

Theory of crime causation-- notion of the "born criminal" (an individual more primitive/atavistic than the noncriminal). With the idea of the born criminal and the biological basis for crime, later work also cited importance of the social and environmental factors in the causation of crime. Emphasis on objectivity, use of scientific method, stress on determinism rather than free will as the primary force to human action, and recognition of environmental factors as contributory to criminality. --Positivists view on source of criminal behavior- tend to assume that crime is determined by factors largely outside the control of the individual. (Whether factors are biological, psychological, or sociological in nature- generally accept idea of multiple-factor causation). --Since criminals did not freely choose their criminal behavior, it's inappropriate to punish them for their crimes. Individualized treatment of offender is appropriate so that underlying causes of criminal behavior may be eliminated- "medical model" to discover effective remedies. = Rehabilitation- purpose of penal treatment is to effect changes in the characters, attitudes, & behavior of convicted offenders- to strengthen social defense against unwanted behavior & also contribute to welfare/satisfaction of offenders. --More emphasis placed on the offender than the offense. Penalties according to unique/varied circumstances of each individual rather than to be based on considerations of social harm/deterrence. Punishments should not be immutably preset by legislatures. Important means for achieving this goal of particularized treatment= indeterminate sentence (offenders remain in prison for as long as it takes to effect a "cure")

What explains the increases in women and juvenile offenders serving life?

There are now 5,361 women serving life sentences in the U.S., representing an increase of 14.2% since the most recent review of national data in 2008.21 Among these, nearly 300 have no opportunity for parole. Women serving life sentences often have particularly tragic histories. Among the females serving LWOP for offenses committed in their teenage years, the vast majority experienced sexual abuse in their childhood. Among women convicted of intimate partner violence-related homicides, the majority have been battered.23 This is even more evident among women serving life sentences.24 Statistics from nationally representative inmate survey data show that 83.8% of life-sentenced women were sexually or physically abused and that abuse is significantly more common among female lifers than male lifers or female prisoners not serving life sentences. Approximately 2,500 juveniles are serving a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.26 The United States is the only country in the world that imposes this sentence on youth. Juveniles serving such sentences have recently garnered attention because of two major Supreme Court cases, Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama.27 In Graham, the Court decided in 2010 that because of their cognitive, behavioral, and emotional differences from adults, youth under 18 at the time of their crime who did not commit a homicide could not be sentenced to the harshest available sentence. In the Miller case two years later, the Court again relied on expert knowledge from the field of adolescent brain science to find an 8th Amendment violation in sentencing youth to LWOP in a mandatory way that did not allow for consideration of their age and other relevant factors. According to estimates, the Miller decision might affect the sentences of 2,000 of these lifesentenced individuals, but cases are pending in as many as ten state supreme courts about whether Miller applies retroactively. Despite these two decisions, juveniles can still receive LWOP sentences through discretionary judicial decisionmaking. In addition to the juveniles serving life sentences without parole, 7,862 people are serving life sentences with the possibility of parole for offenses that occurred before they turned 18. Looking at overall life sentences, we note that in four states, more than 10% of all life-sentenced prisoners were under the age of 18 at the time of their offense: Nevada (12.5%), Wisconsin (11.0%), Maryland (10.5%), and Georgia (10.2%). Nationally, 6.5% of those serving life sentences with parole were under 18 at the time of their crime.

Those incarcerated in the U.S.-- background

Those who are incarcerated in U.S. prisons come largely from the most disadvantaged segments of the population. They comprise mainly minority men under age 40, poorly educated, and often carrying additional deficits of drug and alcohol addiction, mental and physical illness, and a lack of work preparation or experience. — embedded in context of social & economic disadvantage

Three-strikes-and-you're-out laws (Review)

To get repeat offenders off the streets, over 25 states and the federal government have passed three‐strikes laws. These mandatory‐sentencing laws require long sentences of up to life in prison without parole following conviction for a third felony. Major drawbacks of three‐strikes laws include the incarceration of many nonviolent offenders who might be better dealt with through less costly community sanctions and the exacerbation of prison overcrowding. In addition, three‐strikes laws result in decreases in plea bargains and increases in trials, since defendants feel they have nothing to lose by going to trial. Other consequences include increasing jail overcrowding as three‐strike defendants awaiting trial occupy scarce jail space. Finally, the third, and final, strike can be a nonviolent offense (such as marijuana possession), producing a situation in which the maximum sentence of life imprisonment can be disproportionate to the offender's criminal history.

Describe the main factors affecting LOS and the main strategies states are using to reduce prison LOS.

Trends: Arkansas also had one of the largest increases since 1990, with LOS rising by 122 percent for drug offenders. Florida's drug offenders served nearly three times as long in 2009 as in 1990—a 194 percent increase. Oklahoma also more than doubled its average LOS with a 122 percent increase. Demonstrating a small counter trend, five states saw time served for drug crimes decrease during the past two decades, with the largest decrease in Illinois (a 25 percent decline between 1990 and 2005). To help understand how the various factors influencing time served interact, it is helpful to look at the experience of individual states. Florida, California, and Pennsylvania all had large changes in length of stay (LOS) from 1990 to 2009. In each state, multiple policies and practices shaped the numbers in different ways and at different moments during the study period. Their stories illustrate the importance of looking beyond the overall figures. Florida: --Factors Driving LOS Changes 1995 truth-in-sentencing/85 percent rule Tougher penalties, including 10-20-Life Increasing incarceration of drug offenders and use of "Year and a Day" sentences California: --Factors Driving LOS Changes 1994 truth-in-sentencing requirements "Three Strikes and You're Out" initiative, including doubled sentences for second strikers Cuts to rehabilitation programs, curbing prisoners' ability to earn credits toward release Pennsylvania: --Factors Driving LOS Changes Use of jails to hold offenders with shorter sentences High-profile crimes leading to changes in parole board practices Alternatives for drug offenders (^^All states showing violent offenses as the highest charges from 1990-2009, & drug offenses as the lowest) STATE STRATEGIES FOR REDUCING PRISON TERMS: --Reclassifying Offense Types --Amending Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Laws ----Using Risk-Based Sentencing --Expanding Earned-Time Opportunities --Changing Parole Policy and Practice --Making Administrative Changes to Parole --Enacting Revocation Caps

AR: Criminal History Computation:

Type of History- Felonies - Levels 6-10 Score- 1.0 Limits- None Special Considerations- Multiple offense policy Type of History- Felonies - Levels 1-5 Score- 0.5 Limits- None Special Considerations- Multiple offense policy 15 yr. lapse from discharge of sanction Type of History- Misdemeanors-Class A Score- 0.25 Limits- 1 Special Considerations- 10 yr. lapse from date of offense Type of History- Juvenile Adjudications (Serious seven ; Others) Score- (1.0 ; 0.25) Limits- (2 ; 1) Special Considerations- Adult offense Relevance to proceeding 10 yr. lapse from offense Type of History- Custody Status Score- 1 Limits- 1 Special Considerations- None

UCR Index: Violent crime index=

UCR Index: the fact that we've had the UCR for a long time makes it useful Violent crime index= Murder + Non-Neg. Manslaughter Rape Robbery (force) Aggravated assault Property crime index= Burglary Theft/larceny M.V. Theft / Arson

Sentencing & Parole in AR:

Use Sentencing Guidelines-- Indeterminate (Parole) Jurisdictions) Sentencing guidelines set a "presumptive" sentence based on the severity of the crime and also on the offender's record of prior convictions. Under specific mitigating circumstances, the judge can reduce the sentence by ordering a downward departure from the presumptive sentence. Under specific aggravating circumstances, the judge can order an upward departure from the presumptive sentence, thereby increasing the sentence. However, the presumptive sentence is imposed/inflicted most of the time. Binding Effect of Guidelines= Advisory/Voluntary How Trial Court Uses Sentencing Guidelines= Judge uses guidelines to set disposition and term of years (max. term), offense severity dictates min. term No Parole Guidelines.

Why do we punish? Why do we punish the way we do?

Why do we punish? Hopefully to reduce crime. Why do we punish the way we do? Punishment is not simply a response to crime. Punishment is a Social Phenomenon. Punishment/Mass Inc. is a choice. (increase in punishment= a choice). Doubled in 1980 & again in 2002. We decided to become more punitive (which means we can un-decide— change those policies, etc.)

High rates of incarceration in the United States and the great numbers of people held in U.S. prisons and jails result substantially from..?

from decisions by policy makers to increase the use and severity of prison sentences. Other factors have contributed as well-- including rising crime rates in the 1970s and 1980s; decisions by police officials to emphasize street-level arrests of drug dealers in the "war on drugs"; and changes in prevailing attitudes toward crime and criminals that led prosecutors, judges, and parole and other correctional officials to deal more harshly with individuals convicted of crimes. The increase in U.S. incarceration rates over the past 40 years is preponderantly the result of increases both in the likelihood of imprisonment and in lengths of prison sentences—with the latter having been the primary cause since 1990. These increases, in turn, are a product of the proliferation in nearly every state and in the federal system of laws and guidelines providing for lengthy prison sentences for drug and violent crimes and repeat offenses, and the enactment in more than half the states and in the federal system of three strikes and truth-in-sentencing laws.

Drug arrest trends over time

it is clear that drug law enforcement efforts escalated substantially over the period of the prison boom. From 1980 to 1989, the arrest rate for possession and use offenses increased by 89%. After a 2-year period of decline, the drug arrest rate climbed again to peak in 2006, 162% above the 1980 level. The arrest rate fell slightly from this peak, but in 2009 was still more than double the rate in 1980. In 2009, 1.3 million arrests were reported to the UCR for drug use and possession, and another 310,000 arrests were made for the manufacture and sale of drugs

After decades of stability from the 1920s to the early 1970s,

the rate of incarceration in the United States more than quadrupled in the past four decades.

KEY FINDINGS

• As of 2012, there were 159,520 people serving life sentences, an 11.8% rise since 2008. • One of every nine individuals in prison is serving a life sentence. • The population of prisoners serving life without parole (LWOP) has risen more sharply than those with the possibility of parole: there has been a 22.2% increase in LWOP since just 2008, an increase from 40,1745 individuals to 49,081. • Approximately 10,000 lifers have been convicted of nonviolent offenses. • Nearly half of lifers are African American and 1 in 6 are Latino. • More than 10,000 life-sentenced inmates have been convicted of crimes that occurred before they turned 18 and nearly 1 in 4 of them were sentenced to LWOP. • More than 5,300 (3.4%) of the life-sentenced inmates are female.

AR Sentencing Guidelines- In 1993, the Arkansas Sentencing Commission adopted voluntary sentencing guidelines to serve the purposes of:

• Equity in sentencing (similar sentences for similar offenders with similar criminal histories). • Proportionality in sentencing (a balanced correctional system which reserves the most serious sanctions for the most serious offenders). Is there an enforceable rule related to guideline use? The code specifically refers to the sentencing standards as voluntary. Is the completion of a worksheet or structured scoring form required? The office of the prosecuting attorney is responsible for the completion of Judgment and Commitment and Judgment and Disposition forms. Does a Sentencing Commission regularly report on guideline compliance? The Arkansas Sentencing Commission has studied the rate of compliance with sentencing standards. Are compelling and substantial reasons required for departures? Judges can depart from the sentencing standards in "non-typical" cases. Are written reasons required for departures? Arkansas requires written reasons for departures for negotiated pleas but not for bench trials. Is there appellate review of defendant-based challenges related to sentencing guidelines? A defendant may not appeal a sentence departure.

4 principles to constrain the use of incarceration:

• Proportionality: Criminal offenses should be sentenced in proportion to their seriousness. • Parsimony: The period of confinement should be sufficient but not greater than necessary to achieve the goals of sentencing policy. • Citizenship: The conditions and consequences of imprisonment should not be so severe or lasting as to violate one's fundamental status as a member of society. • Social justice: Prisons should be instruments of justice, and as such their collective effect should be to promote and not undermine society's aspirations for a fair distribution of rights, resources, and opportunities. (Together, they help define a balanced role for the use of incarceration in U.S. society.)

VI. Sentencing Reform: Summary (Prosecutors info.)

• Prosecutors are NOT required to present the information to the court— only mandatory if prosecutor says so— then it becomes mandatory. Prosecutors must apply the punishment. • Prosecutors aren't supposed to be neutral parties— defenders defend; prosecutors prosecute. Judges are supposed to be impartial party. Reforms are not public record- criminal sentences are. Means reforms are not reviewable. Most of the time, reforms don't get applied. What happens instead is that it becomes something you bargain over— (applies to plea)

Sentencing policy, Prison policy, and Social policy.

• Sentencing policy. The evidence does not provide explicit guidance for a comprehensive reexamination of current sentencing policies. Details of strategies for reducing incarceration levels will depend on a complex interplay between the public and policy makers. Yet the evidence points to some sentencing practices that impose large social, financial, and human costs; yield uncertain benefits; and are inconsistent with the long-standing principles of the jurisprudence of punishment. Specifically, the evidence suggests that long sentences, mandatory minimum sentences, and policies on enforcement of drug laws should be reexamined. • Prison policy. Given how damaging the experience of incarceration can be for some of those incarcerated and in some cases for their families and communities, we propose that steps be taken to improve the conditions and programs in prisons in ways that will reduce the harmful effects of incarceration and foster the successful reintegration of former prisoners when they are released. • Social policy. Reducing the severity of sentences will not, by itself, relieve the underlying problems of economic insecurity, low education, and poor health that are associated with incarceration in the nation's poorest communities. Solutions to these problems are outside the criminal justice system, and they will include policies that address school dropout, drug addiction, mental illness, and neighborhood poverty—all of which are intimately connected to incarceration. If large numbers of intensely disadvantaged prime-age men and women remain in, or return to, poor communities without supports, the effects could be broadly harmful. Sustainably reducing incarceration may depend, in part, on whether services and programs are sufficient to meet the needs of those who would otherwise be locked up. Thus, policy makers and communities will need to assess and address the availability, accessibility, and quality of social services, including drug treatment, health care, employment, and housing for those who otherwise would be imprisoned.