Introduction
According to the National Institute of Justice truth in sentencing refers to a range of sentencing practices that aim to reduce the uncertainty about the length of time that offenders must serve in prison. Throughout the United States, there has been much legislative activity related to truth in sentencing. “The Truth in Sentencing movement began in 1984 during the extreme overcrowding crises that plagued America during the 1980s and 1990s” (Timothy S. Carr 2008). There were a few discrepancies between the sentence imposed by the judge and the amount of time the offender served in prison. TIS was put in affect to seek the disagreement. States were encourage by the federal government to increase the use of incarceration. If states decided to increase their incarceration they were funded a federal grant to construct, develop, expand, or improve correctional facilities in order to ensure that prison cell space was available for confinement of offenders. There were federal efforts to motivate prisons to increase their incarceration to earn the federally funded grant through two programs called The Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-sentencing (TIS). To receive VOI funding, States needed to give assurance that it will implement policies that guaranteed that violent offender serve majority of their sentences and also guarantee that the time serve was respectively related to the offender’s status and to keep the public safe.
Eligibility for Federal TIS Grant
In order for states to receive TIS funding in 1994 they must implement laws that ensured that the violent offender serve at least 85 percent of their sentence imposed by the judge. Another alternative states could have taken to receive the federal grant was...
... middle of paper ...
...xample, Pennsylvania enacted its legislation in 1911. In some states, such as California and Georgia, enacted TIS law around the same time the Crime Act of 1994 was passed. Officials stated that federal grant did not influence their decision. Other state like Ohio for example, passed its TIS in 1995 a bit late but there state laws were passed on a report in July of 1993 done by the Ohio Sentencing Commission. An official from Mississippi stated that the TIS grant was a partial factor. The reason for the passage of the law because of the dissatisfaction of the parole system. The official also estimated that the federal grant was a 25 percent factor. Oklahoma considering a TIS law that would require offender to serve 75 percent but the state legislator change the law to an 85 percent requirement in order to be eligible for the federal grant.
For a majority of the 20th century, sentencing policies had a minimal effect on social inequality (Western and Pettit 2002). In the early 1970s, this began to change when stricter sentencing policies were enacted (Western and Pettit 2002). Sentencing laws such as determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum sentencing, and three-strikes laws were enacted with the purpose of achieving greater consistency, certainty, and severity in sentencing (National Research Council 2014). Numerous inequalities involving race, ethnicity, gender, and socioeconomic status have generated an unprecedented rate of incarceration in America, especially among minority populations (Western and Pettit 2010). With numerous social inequalities currently
Three strikes laws have been predominantly used in the state of California since 1994. Three strikes laws are set forth for a “tough on crime” approach to attempt to reduce crime rates by methods of deterrence and incapacitation. Several states have followed suit on implementing this type of policy. However, research on three strikes laws have not had a consensus on the actual effects on crime rates within a city, county, or state level. For this reason, the importance of knowing the actual results of implementing this policy are of utmost importance for the proper management of funding in our criminal justice system. Due to the limited resources that states have are very real, we should focus on funding programs that result
There are differences between state and federal sentencing guidelines. The federal guidelines are very vast and complicated (Leonard-Kempf and Sample 2001 p.113). These guidelines have been amended many times over the course of the past 25 years. According to Gazal-Ayal, Turjeman and Fishman (2013 p. 131) judges have historically had the weight and responsibility to sentence criminals in the way that they see fit. Some judges have abused this responsibility leading to the creation of sentencing guidelines. The Sentencing Reform Act was passed in 1984 in order to place strict guidelines on the judge’s discretion during sentencing (Rehavi and Starr 2013 p. 11). The United States Sentencing Committee wanted to keep the judge’s personal opinions and beliefs separate from the courtroom in order to create fair sentences. The creation of sentencing guidelines keeps people involved in the sentencing process in check.
De Luca, H., & Miller, T. J. (1991). Punishment vs. rehabilitation: A proposal for revising sentencing practices. Federal Probation, 55(3), 37.
Starting in 1970s, there has been an upward adjustment to sentencing making punishment more punitive and sentencing guidelines more strict. Martinson's (1974) meta-analyzies reviewed over 200 studies and concluded that nothing works in terms of rehabilitating prisoners. Rehabilitating efforts were discontinued. The War on Drugs campaign in 1970s incarcerated thousands of non-violent drug offenders into the system. In 1865, 34.3% of prison population were imprisoned for drug violation. By 1995, the percentage grew to 59.9% (figure 4.1, 104). Legislation policies like the Third Strikes laws of 1994 have further the severity of sentencing. The shift from rehabilitation to human warehouse marks the end of an era of trying to reform individuals and the beginnings of locking inmates without preparation of their release. Along with the reform in the 1970s, prosecutors are given more discretion at the expense of judges. Prosecutors are often pressure to be tough on crime by the socie...
The amount of jail time someone convicted for cocaine related charge was drastically shorter than the amount given to someone who dealt with crack. On August 3rd, 2010 President Barack Obama signed the Fair Sentencing Act into law. This is not the first law signed, but it is more extensive, and meets different criteria than the others. Unfortunately, there were several Acts produced before Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, but some failed to be introduced, and some only pacified the problem
A sample of inmates released during this period was drawn from a list obtained from the Florida Department of Correction, for a total sample of roughly 3,793 offenders. Careful attention was given to securing a representative sample from each offense group. The offenders chosen were released from public and private state prisons after expiration of their sentences. The centralized idea of this study was to determine the differentiation between public and private state prisons focusing on recidivism. I have chosen two cases that reflect on the central issue of this topic and how they are treated by the Courts which can hopefully shed some light on the research problem as it exists in present society. These cases are based on California's legislative system which relate to the problem of recidivism in Florida.
Mass incarceration has caused the prison’s populations to increase dramatically. The reason for this increase in population is because of the sentencing policies that put a lot of men and women in prison for an unjust amount of time. The prison population has be caused by periods of high crime rates, by the medias assembly line approach to the production of news stories that bend the truth of the crimes, and by political figures preying on citizens fear. For example, this fear can be seen in “Richard Nixon’s famous campaign call for “law and order” spoke to those fears, hostilities, and racist underpinnings” (Mauer pg. 52). This causes law enforcement to focus on crimes that involve violent crimes/offenders. Such as, gang members, drive by shootings, drug dealers, and serial killers. Instead of our law agencies focusing their attention on the fundamental causes of crime. Such as, why these crimes are committed, the family, and preventive services. These agencies choose to fight crime by establishing a “War On Drugs” and with “Get Tough” sentencing policies. These policies include “three strikes laws, mandatory minimum sentences, and juvenile waives laws which allows kids to be trialed as adults.
To begin, Mandatory minimum sentences result in prison overcrowding, and based on several studies, it does not alleviate crime, for example crimes such as shoplifting or solicitation. These sentencing guidelines do not allow a judge to take into consideration the first time offender, differentiate the deviance level of the offender, and it does not allow for the judge to alter a punishment or judgment to each individual case. When mandatory sentencing came into effect, the drug lords they were trying to stop are not the ones being affected by the sentences. It is the nonviolent, low-level drug users who are overcrowding the prisons as a result of these sentences. Both the U.S. Sentencing Commission and the Department of Justice have determined that mandatory sentencing is not an effective way to deter crime. Studies show that mandatory minimums have gone downhill due to racial a...
A great disparity existed between judges; some were lenient while others were stricter this inconsistency led to sentencing disparity between judges. In response to concerns that judges were introducing unnecessary disparities in sentencing mandatory Federal Sentencing guidelines were set in place to create a uniform policy containing a fair and consistent sentencing range for convicted Federal defendants regardless of race, gender or class.
Uggen, Christopher, Sarah Shannon, and Jeff Manza. "State-Level Estimates of Felon Disenfranchisement in the United States, 2010." The Sentencing Project News -. The Sentencing Project, 20 Aug. 2012. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.
Overcrowding in our state and federal jails today has become a big issue. Back in the 20th century, prison rates in the U.S were fairly low. During the years later due to economic and political factors, that rate began to rise. According to the Bureau of justice statistics, the amount of people in prison went from 139 per 100,000 inmates to 502 per 100,000 inmates from 1980 to 2009. That is nearly 261%. Over 2.1 million Americans are incarcerated and 7.2 million are either incarcerated or under parole. According to these statistics, the U.S has 25% of the world’s prisoners. (Rick Wilson pg.1) Our prison systems simply have too many people. To try and help fix this problem, there needs to be shorter sentences for smaller crimes. Based on the many people in jail at the moment, funding for prison has dropped tremendously.
The justice system in America is a failure and should be immediately reformed to a more standardized system that encourages reform over punishment. This is clearly evidenced by the 76.6% of prisoners that are rearrested within five years of release, the inequality of sentencing based on race or socioeconomic class, and the widely varying prison terms, which in many cases do not fit the crimes committed.
Americans believe that the more serious a crime is, the longer a person should spend in a prison. In reality it means that a law at discretion can sometimes just set a number of years that a person should spend in the jail, regardless of the situation. The time in the prison is often very long (Randall, Brown, Miller& Fritzler, p.216) because some states have definite sentence or mandatory sentences which leave little room for the judge to decide on the merits of the person. For example, California favors “Three Strikes and You’re Out”(Randall & et al., p.216) stance on the laws which means after third felony crime, a person must spend 25-year-to-life sentence in the prison. They believe that the deprivations of basic needs, isolation from the society, and in extreme cases, death are consequences of committing a crime.
All over America, crime is on the rise. Every day, every minute, and even every second someone will commit a crime. Now, I invite you to consider that a crime is taking place as you read this paper. "The fraction of the population in the State and Federal prison has increased in every single year for the last 34 years and the rate for imprisonment today is now five times higher than in 1972"(Russell, 2009). Considering that rate along crime is a serious act. These crimes range from robbery, rape, kidnapping, identity theft, abuse, trafficking, assault, and murder. Crime is a major social problem in the United States. While the correctional system was designed to protect society from offenders it also serves two specific functions. First it can serve as a tool for punishing the offender. This involves making the offender pay for his/her crime while serving time in a correctional facility. On the other hand it can serve as a place to rehabilitate the offender as preparation to be successful as they renter society. The U.S correctional system is a quite controversial subject that leads to questions such as how does our correctional system punish offenders? How does our correctional system rehabilitate offenders? Which method is more effective in reducing crime punishment or rehabilitation? Our correctional system has several ways to punish and rehabilitate offenders.