1 / 27

Two Decades of Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia

VIRGINIA CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION. Two Decades of Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia. June 9, 2014 . Sentencing Reform in Virginia. The abolition of parole was a key issue in the 1993 gubernatorial campaign. Truth-in-sentencing Transparency

melodie-mckay
Télécharger la présentation

Two Decades of Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. VIRGINIA CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION Two Decades of Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia June 9, 2014

  2. Sentencing Reform in Virginia • The abolition of parole was a key issue in the 1993 gubernatorial campaign. • Truth-in-sentencing • Transparency • Soon after his inauguration, the new governor formed a task force to develop a comprehensive sentencing reform plan. • Task force staff conducted a thorough review of historical sentencing practices and time served under the existing parole system.

  3. Under the parole system, Virginia’s inmates were serving a fraction of the sentences ordered by the court. Average Prison Sentence and Time Served for Inmates Released in 1993

  4. Virginia’s Sentencing Reform Legislation (1994) Goals of Sentencing Reform: Abolish parole Establish truth-in-sentencing (minimum 85% time served) Target violent felons for longer terms of incarceration Redirect prison-bound low-risk offenders to less costly sanctions Expand alternative punishment options for some nonviolent felons Reduce sentencing disparities Create a sentencing commission to oversee a voluntary sentencing guidelines system Adopted during a 1994 Special Session of the General Assembly, the sentencing reform provisions took effect for felonies committed on or after January 1, 1995.

  5. Two Decades of Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia • Now that Virginia is approaching 20 years under the truth-in-sentencing/no-parole system, the Commission can take a close look at the impact of sentencing reform. • Some analysis was conducted for the 10-year anniversary of truth-in-sentencing. • New analysis can be completed to examine various aspects of Virginia’s sentencing system and length-of-stay.

  6. Under truth-in-sentencing, felons are serving at least 85% of the sentence ordered by the court. Parole System Truth-in-Sentencing 85% 1st Degree Murder 2nd Degree Murder Voluntary Manslaughter Rape/Forcible Sodomy Malicious Wounding Robbery Burglary Sale of Schedule I/II Drug Sale of Marijuana Larceny 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Parole system data represent FY1993 prison releases; truth-in-sentencing data is derived from the rate of sentence credits earned among prison inmates as of December 31, 2007

  7. Under the truth-in-sentencing system, violent offenders were targeted for longer terms of incarceration. Historical time served was increased or “enhanced” by 100%, 300%, or 500% for offenders with current or prior violent felony convictions Level of Guidelines Enhancement Current Violent Offense/ No Violent Priors Less Serious Violent Priors More Serious Violent Priors Note: Certain burglaries are defined by § 17.1-805 as violent crimes. Violent offender definition includes including juvenile adjudications.

  8. Violent offenders, and particularly repeat violent offenders, are serving significantly longer under truth-in-sentencing. Prison Time Served (in years) Forcible Rape 26.6 22.2 10.6 6.7 6.7 5.6 None Less Serious More Serious Prior Violent Record Parole System Truth-in-Sentencing These figures present values of actual incarceration time served under parole laws (1988-1992) and expected time to be served under truth-in-sentencing provisions for cases sentenced FY2004 through FY2008. Time served values are represented by the median (the middle value, where half the time served values are higher and half are lower). Truth-in-sentencing data include only cases recommended for, and sentenced to, incarceration of more than six months.

  9. Nonviolent offenders are serving about the same amount of time, on average, as they did prior to the abolition of parole. Prison Time Served (in years) Sale of a Schedule I/II Drug 4.5 3.1 1.6 1.5 1 .9 None Less Serious More Serious Prior Violent Record Parole System Truth-in-Sentencing These figures present values of actual incarceration time served under parole laws (1988-1992) and expected time to be served under truth-in-sentencing provisions for cases sentenced FY2004 through FY2008. Time served values are represented by the median (the middle value, where half the time served values are higher and half are lower). Truth-in-sentencing data include only cases recommended for, and sentenced to, incarceration of more than six months.

  10. Each year, roughly 3,000 low-risk drug, larceny, and fraud offenders are recommended for alternative sanctions. Risk Assessment for Nonviolent Offenders* Not Recommended for Alternative Recommended for Alternative N=6,062 N=6,981 N=6,473 * Offenders recommended by the sentencing guidelines for prison or jail incarceration 10

  11. Half of the low-risk, prison-bound nonviolent offenders are sentenced to alternative sanctions. Risk Assessment for Nonviolent Offenders (as applied to those recommended for PRISON incarceration)* Recommended for Alternative Not Recommended for Alternative (1,599) N=3,178 Did Not Receive an Alternative Sanction Received an Alternative Sanction (792) (807) * Sentencing guidelines recommendation is for incarceration with a midpoint of one year or more 11

  12. For sex offenders scoring above the specified threshold on risk assessment, the upper end of the guidelines range is extended. Preliminary FY2013 ReportCompliance Rates by Risk Level for Rape Offenders(n=74*) Compliance Number of Cases Adjusted Range Risk Level Mitigation Traditional Aggravation Very High Risk 0% 100% 0% 0% 2 100% High Risk 27% 53% 7% 13% 15 60% Moderate Risk 0% 81% 13% 6% 16 94% No Level 20% 51% 29% 41 --- 51% 12

  13. For sex offenders scoring above the specified threshold on risk assessment, the upper end of the guidelines range is extended. Preliminary FY2013ReportCompliance Rates by Risk Level for Other Sexual Assault Offenders(n=173*) Compliance Number of Cases Adjusted Range Risk Level Mitigation Aggravation Traditional Very High Risk 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 0% High Risk 11% 56% 33% 0% 18 89% Moderate Risk 7% 74% 12% 7% 42 86% No Level 11% 59% --- 30% 113 59% * Excludes Other Sexual Assault cases missing risk assessment and cases in which risk assessment is not applicable (e.g., child pornography and child solicitation offenses) 13

  14. The percent of violent felony offenders who were recidivists declined during the first decade of truth-in-sentencing. Percent of Violent Felony Offenders* with Violent Prior Records * As defined in § 17.1-805 Sources: Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, A Decade of Truth-in-Sentencing, 2004

  15. A larger share of expensive prison beds are occupied by violent felons. Percent of State Prison Beds Holding Violent Felons* * As defined in § 17.1-805

  16. Virginia’s violent crime rate has declined since the early 1990s and is now lower than any time since the early 1960s. Violent Index Crime Rate in Virginia and the US Violent index crimes are murder/non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault United States Change 1991-2010: - 47% Virginia Change 1991-2010: - 43% Source: Virginia State Police Incident-Based Crime Reporting Repository System as analyzed by the Dept. of Criminal Justice Services Research Center (July 23, 2012)

  17. Virginia’s property crime rate has fallen since the early 1990s, reaching levels not seen since the late 1960s. Property Index Crime Rate in Virginia and the US Property index crimes are burglary, larceny and motor vehicle theft United States Change 1991-2010: - 43% Virginia Change 1991-2010: - 45% Source: Virginia State Police Incident-Based Crime Reporting Repository System as analyzed by the Dept. of Criminal Justice Services Research Center (July 23, 2012)

  18. Virginia’s overall crime rate has dropped significantly, while its incarceration rate has increased by less than 9%.

  19. Virginia’s prison population growth has slowed. Prison Population Growth

  20. Comparing states that calculate a three-year re-imprisonment rate, Virginia ranks second lowest. Three-Year Re-Imprisonment Rate by State Virginia Note: Missouri’s recidivism rate excludes the release of parole violators who have previously been returned to prison for a violation of supervision within the commitment.

  21. NCSC MN National Center for State Courts Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States MI VA States with Sentencing Guidelines Systems

  22. Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States MN MI VA A Continuum of State Sentencing Guideline Systems AL DC TN DE UT VA AK MA MD OR KS WA OH WI AR PA NC MO LA MI MN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 More voluntary More mandatory

  23. Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States MN MI VA • Examining the practices in three states, the researchers asked three questions: • Are actual sentences predictable using the prescribed elements and mechanics of guidelines systems? • Do more serious offenders receive proportionally greater punishment as prescribed by guidelines? • Are sentences under the aegis of guidelines fair in the sense of being non-discriminatory, thereby minimizing the effects of extra-legal elements, such as age, race, gender, and geographic location of offenders?

  24. Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States MN MI VA • Three criteria guided the evaluation: • Do similarly situated offenders as defined by the guidelines receive similar sentences? • Do the guidelines provide meaningful and proportional distinctions between more serious and less serious offenders? • Is there discrimination in sentencing?

  25. Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States MN MI VA Findings (1)Guidelines make sentences more predictable in determining who goes to prison and for how long. • Predictability in sentencing outcomes is correlated with location on the sentencing guidelines continuum. • More mandatory the sentencing guidelines, more predictability.

  26. Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States MN MI VA • Findings • (2)Guidelines effectively limit undesirable sentencing disparity by reducing the role of factors that should not play a role in the sentencing decision. • No evidence of a direct relationship between location on the continuum and undesirable racial, gender, age, or geographical disparities. • Minnesota (more mandatory) and Virginia (more voluntary) show no substantively significant discrimination. • Michigan (between Minnesota and Virginia) shows evidence of substantive discrimination.

  27. Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States MN MI VA Findings (3)Guidelines make sentencing patterns more transparent by clarifying the factors to be considered during sen-tencing and how the factors are to be scored in terms of their gravity. (4)State officials have options when designing guidelines that allow policy makers to incorporate multiple design considerations about how best to shape judicial discretion. (5)Active participation by a Sentencing Commission is an essential element of effective guidelines.

More Related