25 Experts Envision the
Next 25 Years of Reform
In October 2011 The Sentencing Project celebrated its
25th anniversary with a forum held at the National
Press Club in Washington, D.C. That event, Criminal
Justice 2036, was designed with two ideas in mind. First,
to celebrate the accomplishments of our organization
over a quarter century, of which we are indeed
proud. Our contributions to public debate and public
policy on issues of crime and punishment during the
period, we hope, have helped in some measure to reduce
harm and improve lives.
Secondly, and more importantly, we used the occasion
to envision what our criminal justice system—and our
approach to public safety—should look like 25 years into the
future, in the year 2036. We did so because we believe there
is a moment of opportunity now, and therefore it is timely
to think broadly about directions for constructive reform.
In order to envision where we might go over 25 years, it is
helpful to assess where we have come from in the last 25
years. In this regard, there are two very different stories we
might tell.
The first is one of a policy climate in which punishment has
been exalted in ways unimaginable not very long ago. The
number of people in our prisons and jails has nearly tripled
during this time, a half million people are incarcerated for
a drug offense, and racial/ethnic disparities within the justice
system are profound. Increasingly, we are gaining new
insight into the varied ways in which high rates of incarceration
in disadvantaged communities affect family formation,
social cohesion, and life prospects.
Read on...
Your resource for news, research, opinion and comment in the world of Criminology and Criminal Justice, brought to you by the Criminology Library, Centre for Criminology & Sociolegal Studies, University of Toronto
Showing posts with label Sentencing Project. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sentencing Project. Show all posts
The State of Sentencing 2010
Developments in Policy and Practice
This report was written by Nicole D. Porter, State Advocacy
Coordinator of The Sentencing Project, with research support from
Ajima Olaghere.
The Sentencing Project is a national non-profit organization engaged
in research and advocacy on criminal justice policy issues.
The full report can be found here.
This report was written by Nicole D. Porter, State Advocacy
Coordinator of The Sentencing Project, with research support from
Ajima Olaghere.
The Sentencing Project is a national non-profit organization engaged
in research and advocacy on criminal justice policy issues.
The full report can be found here.
New Briefing Paper: Deterrence – Effects of Certainty vs. Severity
We are pleased to let you know of our new publication, Deterrence in Criminal Justice: Evaluating Certainty versus Severity of Punishment by Valerie Wright, Ph.D. The report addresses a key concern for policy makers regarding whether deterrence is better achieved by increasing the likelihood of apprehension or increasing the severity of sanctions.
Overall, the report concludes that:
• Enhancing the certainty of punishment is far more likely to produce deterrent effects than increasing the severity of punishment.
• Particularly at high levels of incarceration, there is no significant public safety benefit to increasing the severity of sentences by imposing longer prison terms.
• Policies such as “three strikes and you’re out” and mandatory minimum sentences only burden state budgets without increasing public safety.
• Evidence-based approaches would require increasing the certainty of punishment by improving the likelihood of detection.
Read on...
This is from the Sentencing Project. Tom
Overall, the report concludes that:
• Enhancing the certainty of punishment is far more likely to produce deterrent effects than increasing the severity of punishment.
• Particularly at high levels of incarceration, there is no significant public safety benefit to increasing the severity of sentences by imposing longer prison terms.
• Policies such as “three strikes and you’re out” and mandatory minimum sentences only burden state budgets without increasing public safety.
• Evidence-based approaches would require increasing the certainty of punishment by improving the likelihood of detection.
Read on...
This is from the Sentencing Project. Tom
THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2009 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE
With states around the nation experiencing significant fiscal crises,
legislators are increasingly interested in prioritizing available resources as
they affect how states direct scarce correctional dollars. As a result, many
states are rethinking their sentencing policies in order to develop fair and effective
approaches to strengthen public safety. Legislative initiatives to address prison
overcrowding, parole policies and sentencing alternatives are increasingly at the
forefront of state criminal justice agendas.
During 2009 state legislatures in at least 19 states enacted policies that hold the
potential to reduce prison populations and/or promote more effective approaches to
public safety.1 This report examines these initiatives in sentencing reform, death
penalty, probation and parole practices, and juvenile justice. Highlights include:
• Three states scaled back the scope of mandatory minimum drug sentences;
• Seven states amended probation and parole policies to expand good time and
earned time programs resulting in reducing prison sentences;
• Four states improved juvenile justice policies, including eliminating juvenile
life without parole and modifying adult certification procedures;
• Two states created incentive programs for local jurisdictions to reduce
probation revocations;
• New Mexico repealed the death penalty;
• North Carolina permitted persons sentenced to death to challenge their death
sentence by arguing that there is systemic racial bias in the way that capital
punishment is applied;
• Four states created oversight committees or task forces to address sentencing
laws, overcrowding, and reentry services;
Read on....
This is from The Sentencing Project. Tom
legislators are increasingly interested in prioritizing available resources as
they affect how states direct scarce correctional dollars. As a result, many
states are rethinking their sentencing policies in order to develop fair and effective
approaches to strengthen public safety. Legislative initiatives to address prison
overcrowding, parole policies and sentencing alternatives are increasingly at the
forefront of state criminal justice agendas.
During 2009 state legislatures in at least 19 states enacted policies that hold the
potential to reduce prison populations and/or promote more effective approaches to
public safety.1 This report examines these initiatives in sentencing reform, death
penalty, probation and parole practices, and juvenile justice. Highlights include:
• Three states scaled back the scope of mandatory minimum drug sentences;
• Seven states amended probation and parole policies to expand good time and
earned time programs resulting in reducing prison sentences;
• Four states improved juvenile justice policies, including eliminating juvenile
life without parole and modifying adult certification procedures;
• Two states created incentive programs for local jurisdictions to reduce
probation revocations;
• New Mexico repealed the death penalty;
• North Carolina permitted persons sentenced to death to challenge their death
sentence by arguing that there is systemic racial bias in the way that capital
punishment is applied;
• Four states created oversight committees or task forces to address sentencing
laws, overcrowding, and reentry services;
Read on....
This is from The Sentencing Project. Tom
RACE AND JUSTICE CLEARINGHOUSE
Welcome to the Race and Justice Clearinghouse, a resource for information, analysis, and commentary on race and ethnicity as they interact with the criminal justice and juvenile justice systems.
The Clearinghouse contains information and tools for policymakers, practitioners, and advocates to understand racial disparities so they can be addressed, and make the criminal justice system more fair and effective.
This is an fyi. Tom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)