SENTENCING REFORM IN NORTH CAROLINA Thomas W. Ross.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Department of Corrections Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission “Prison Bound Offenders” Appropriations Act Item 387 D September 8, 2008.
Advertisements

Public Safety Performance Project October 2, 2012 Less Crime at Lower Costs Special Council on Criminal Justice Reform for Georgians.
1 Michigan Department of Corrections Office of Community Corrections  Office of Community Corrections was created pursuant to Public Act 511 of 1988,
Thinking Critically Questions Chapter Ten and Eleven.
Slide 1 Recent Developments in Sentencing and Corrections Reform Presentation to the Nevada Advisory Commission on the Administration of Justice January.
Marijuana Decriminalization The First Step to Prison Reform.
PROCESSING OF YOUTHFUL AND JUVENILE OFFENDERS IN NORTH CAROLINA Youth Accountability Planning Task Force December 10, 2009.
1 _____ March 5, 2009 SC Sentencing Reform Commission Presenter South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster S206/H3166 _____.
Offender Population Forecasting in Virginia. 2 Background - Studies by JLARC in 1980s  Staff of the Joint Legislative Audit & Review Commission (JLARC)
NORTH CAROLINA SENTENCING AND POLICY ADVISORY COMMISSION Report on Study of Youthful Offenders Pursuant to Session Law , Sections 34.1 and 34.2.
Study of Virginia’s Parole- Eligible Inmate Population.
“Justice Reinvestment through Policy Analysis in South Carolina” South Carolina State Senator Gerald Malloy 1.
Presentation by: Andrew Clark Director of the Institute for the Study of Crime & Justice and the Institute for Municipal and Regional Policy at CCSU Institute.
BJS CORRECTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES
Public Safety Realignment Local custody for non-violent, non- serious, non-sex offenders Changes to State Parole Local Post-release Supervision Local.
THE IMPACT OF AB 109 ON LAPD. Overview AB 109 impact on the LAPD Statistical information AB 109 impact on LAPD jail facilities Securing the safety of.
CHAPTER EIGHT SENTENCING.
Presented By: Chief Edward Medrano Gardena Police Department.
Virginia’s Geriatric Release Provision. 2 Geriatric Release Provision & Truth-in-Sentencing  The Geriatric Release Provision was adopted as part of the.
Sentencing and Punishment
Mandatory Transfer to Superior Court 13 through 15 years old Class A felony offense 2 juveniles in FY 2004/05.
Commission on Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform : System-wide Criminal Justice Spending June 3, 2015.
Intro to Law Criminal Process: Sentencing. Sentencing Options Suspended Sentence – given, but does not have be served at that time, but may have to serve.
September 8, 2014 VIRGINIA CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION Two Decades of Truth-in- Sentencing in Virginia Update.
Legislative Impact Analysis for the 2009 General Assembly.
11 Beyond the Bench 2013 “Juvenile Justice Reform– where are we now?” CALIFORNIA JUVENILE JUSTICE TRENDS UPDATE December 2, 2013 – Anaheim, CA Presented.
Making Communities Safer Population Management/Control Strategies ASCA All Directors Training Session 2 December 3, 2010 CHRISTOPHER B. EPPS COMMISSIONER.
November 5, 2014 New Nonviolent Offender Risk Assessment Instruments – Status Update VIRGINIA CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION.
NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission RECIDIVISM OF 16 AND 17 YEAR OLD AND JUVENILE OFFENDERS: FINDINGS FROM TWO STUDIES Presented to Youth Accountability.
1 The MDOC Five Year Plan to Control Prison Growth Phase III: Long Term Policy Options SUMMARY BRIEF SUMMARY BRIEF Preliminary MDOC Proposal Revising Michigan’s.
Addressing Criminal Behavior-- Types of Punishment.
Use of Offender Risk Assessment in Virginia Presentation at the 2012 NASC Conference Meredith Farrar-Owens Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission.
1 A Presentation to Senate Judiciary B And Judiciary C Committees February 15, 2000 Kari Belvin, Senate Fiscal Services Chris Keaton, Legislative Fiscal.
North Carolina TASC NC TASC Bridging Systems for Effective Offender Care Management.
SENTENCING REFORM IN NORTH CAROLINA Thomas W. Ross.
Chapter 2 Sentencing and the Correctional Process Corrections: An Introduction, 2/e Seiter ©2008 Pearson Education, Inc. Pearson Prentice Hall Upper Saddle.
Michigan Department of Corrections Updated Prison Bed Space Projections Impact from Probation, Community Corrections, Parole and the MPRI Presentation.
Comparative Perspectives on Sentencing Severity and Sentencing Alternatives Richard S. Frase University of Minnesota Symposium on Alternatives to Incarceration.
Salient Factor Score CTSFS99. What it is How to use it.
1 Legislative Impact Analysis for the 2005 Virginia General Assembly.
Purpose of Punishment Corrections. Retribution – An eye for an eye; a tooth for a tooth. – Society, through the criminal justice system, taking on the.
Prop. 47 Criminal Sentences. The Question Should the penalties for certain offenders convicted of non-serious, nonviolent crimes be reduced from felonies.
State of Connecticut Judicial Branch Court Support Services Division RBA Report Card – Adult Probation November 10, 2010 Update to the Criminal Justice.
Legislative Impact Analysis for the 2008 General Assembly.
Criminal Justice Process:
Review of Guidelines Worksheet Structure – Data Analysis.
Introduction to Criminal Justice Sentencing, Appeals, and the Death Penalty Chapter Nine Bohm and Haley.
Sentencing Task Force Survey of Priorities Results.
Chapter 12 Probation and Community Corrections. JUSTIFICATION Reintegration Preparing offenders to return to the community unmarred by further criminal.
Review of Guidelines Worksheet Structure - Research Proposal.
Realignment: A One-year Examination of Offenders Released from State Prison in the First Six Months of Public Safety Realignment Association for Criminal.
Proposed Recommendations for Guidelines Revisions.
Dealing with Lawbreakers
Yavapai County Jail Planning Services Presentation to: Yavapai County Board of Supervisors January 6, 2016.
32,154 31,971 SC prison projections, 6/30/01 Actual prison population, 6/30/01 34,129 (33,848) 32, , Projection prison population, and.
 State leadership created the bipartisan, inter-branch, inter- governmental Missouri Working Group on Sentencing and Corrections.
Kaplan University Online CJ101 Unit 8 Introduction to the Criminal Justice System.
Reclassifying Nonviolent, Small Quantity Possession Potential Impact on Alaska’s Budget and Society.
State Sentencing Policy Roundup Carl Reynolds Director, Office of Court Administration, Austin Texas.
Department of Sociology & Criminal Justice What is an appropriate punishment or response? What do you expect your response to do for the offender, potential.
Criminal Justice Policy Development and Resource Reinvestment Len Engel, Esq. December 10, 2010 What Works Conference Portland, OR Crime and Justice Institute.
Mass Incarceration: Prospects for Reform American Friends Service Committee, Arizona.
When Discrimination is Legal: The Social Costs of Felony Convictions
South Dakota: Criminal Justice Reform
North Dakota Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation
Graduate School of Social Work
C H A P T E R T H R E.
California State Association of Counties
CJA 394 GUIDE Education Your Life-- cja394guide.com.
Presentation transcript:

SENTENCING REFORM IN NORTH CAROLINA Thomas W. Ross

PROBLEMS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM JUDICIAL SENTENCES LOSING MEANING FELONS SERVING ONLY A FRACTION OF SENTENCE

* Sentencing Commission created ** Projected with cap and no new prisons

PROBLEMS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM JUDICIAL SENTENCES LOSING MEANING FELONS SERVING ONLY A FRACTION OF SENTENCE MISDEMEANORS SPINNING THROUGH SYSTEM PROBATION VIOLATIONS ESCALATING OFFENDERS REFUSING ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON PUBLIC CONFIDENCE ERODING

THE FIRST STEP CREATION OF SENTENCING COMMISSION 23 INITIAL MEMBERS LEGISLATIVE DIRECTIVES

CONSTRUCT CORRECTIONAL SIMULATION MODEL CLASSIFY CRIMINAL OFFENSES RECOMMEND STRUCTURE FOR SENTENCING DEVELOP COMPREHENSIVE COMMUNITY CORRECTION STRATEGY CONSIDER OTHER POLICY ISSUES

GOALS OF REFORM SET PRIORITIES FOR PRISON SPACE RESTORE TRUTH IN SENTENCING PROVIDE UNDERLYING RATIONALE FOR SENTENCING ENHANCE CONSISTENCY IN SENTENCING ENHANCE CERTAINTY IN SENTENCING MAKE EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES BALANCE SENTENCING POLICIES WITH RESOURCES

PROCESS FOLLOWED COMPONENTS OF SENTENCING DECISION

PROCESS FOLLOWED COMPONENTS OF SENTENCING DECISION SUBCOMMITTEES DEVELOPED PROPOSALS

FELONY CLASSIFICATION CRITERIA*

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2007/08 Felony Statistical Report Data

(7,675) (3,937) (11,702) (3,552) (2,233) A=0.3% (96) B1=0.5% (144) B2=1.0% (297) C=3.5% (1,030) D=2.7% (781) E=4.1% (1,204)

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2007/08 Felony Statistical Report Data

*FY 2007/08 Structured Sentencing Data SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission and NC Department of Correction

*FY 2007/08 Structured Sentencing Simulation data SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission

* NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2007/08 Felony Statistical Report Data ** 1993 Pre-Structured Sentencing Data

* FSA based on CY 1993 data; SSA based on FY 2007/08 Felony Structured Sentencing Simulation data. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission and NC Department of Correction

SOURCE: State Bureau of Investigation, 2007 NC CRIME TRENDS INDEX CRIME RATES

SOURCE: State Bureau of Investigation, 2007 NC CRIME TRENDS VIOLENT CRIME RATES

TRUTH IN SENTENCING RESTORED ANNUAL PROJECTIONS TO HELP PLAN PRISON CAPACITY NO PAROLE FOR OFFENDERS SENTENCED UNDER STRUCTURED SENTENCING PRISON CAP REPEALED VIOLENT OFFENDERS SERVING LONGER SENTENCES TOUGHER COMMUNITY PUNISHMENTS PUNISHMENT MORE CERTAIN AND CONSISTENT SENTENCING POLICY FORMULATED IN CONSIDERATION OF CORRECTIONAL RESOURCES THE N.C. CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TODAY

Note: Prison capacity figures reflect Expanded Operating Capacity. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission and NC Department of Correction

Note: Prison capacity figures reflect Expanded Operating Capacity. SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission and NC Department of Correction

DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROJECTED PRISON POPULATION BY OFFENSE CLASS FELONIES ONLY SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2007/08 Structured Sentencing Simulation Model

SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2007/08 Felony Statistical Report Data DISTRIBUTION OF FY 2007/08 CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES

DISTRIBUTION OF THE 2009 PROJECTED PRISON POPULATION BY OFFENSE CLASS NOTE: The distribution of the 2009 projected prison population is based only on felonies and excludes offenses for which the offense class is unknown (1%). SOURCE: NC Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission, FY 2007/08 Structured Sentencing Simulation Model

THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM TOMORROW PRISONS WILL BECOME OVERCROWDED LAWSUITS WILL RETURN INCREASED RISKS TO CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS PROPOSALS FOR PAROLE WILL RETURN TRUTH IN SENTENCING WILL BE COMPROMISED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WILL BE SPENT ON PRISONS AND NOT AVAILABLE FOR OTHER NEEDS

ROLE OF THE SENTENCING COMMISSION MONITORING IMPACT ANALYSIS ANALYSIS OF NEW LEGISLATION RECOMMENDING MODIFICATIONS

ADVANTAGES OF STRUCTURED SENTENCING PROMOTES TRUTH IN SENTENCING SETS PRIORITIES ALLOWS EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES ENHANCES CONSISTENCY AND CERTAINTY IN SENTENCING PROVIDES UNDERLYING RATIONALE FOR SENTENCING BALANCES POLICY WITH RESOURCES

Offense Class Prior Record Level Total I 0 Points II 1-4 Points III 5-8 Points IV 9-14 Points V Points VI 19+ Points A A A = 45 (100%) (n = 45) Life/Death A A = 28 (100%) (n = 28) Life/Death A A = 9 (100%) (n = 9) Life/Death A A = 9 (100%) (n = 9) Life/Death A A = 3 (100%) (n = 3) Life/Death A A = 2 (100%) (n = 2) Life/Death A A = 96 (100%) (n = 96) Life/Death B1 A A = 69 (100%) (n = 69) 196 min 245 max A A = 40 (100%) (n = 40) 250 min 309 max A A = 23 (100%) (n =23) 303 min 372 max A A = 8 (100%) (n = 8) 348 min 427 max A A = 1 (100%) (n = 1) 433 min 529 max A A = 3 (100%) (n = 3) 464 min 563 max A A = 144 (100%) (n = 144) 244 min 302 max B2 A A = 107 (100%) (n = 107) 136 min 172 max A A = 97 (100%) (n = 97) 169 min 212 max A A = 44 (100%) (n = 44) 201 min 250 max A A = 41 (100%) (n = 41) 227 min 282 max A A = 6 (100%) (n = 6) 263 min 325 max A A = 2 (100%) (n = 2) 277 min 341 max A A = 297 (100%) (n = 297) 172 min 216 max C A A = 111 (100%) (n = 111) 60 min 81 max A A = 180 (100%) (n = 180) 77 min 101 max A A = 238 (100%) (n = 238) 85 min 110 max A A = 294 (100%) (n = 294) 95 min 123 max A A = 115 (100%) (n = 115) 106 min 136 max A A = 92 (100%) (n = 92) 118 min 149 max A A = 1,030(100%) (n = 1,030) 89 min 115 max D A A = 292 (100%) (n = 292) 49 min 69 max A A = 228 (100%) (n = 228) 62 min 83 max A A = 140 (100%) (n = 140) 82 min 108 max A A = 80 (100%) (n = 80) 97 min 126 max A A = 21 (100%) (n = 21) 107 min 138 max A A = 20 (100%) (n = 20) 122 min 155 max A A = 781 (100%) (n = 781) 67 min 90 max E I/A I = 319 (68%) A = 150 (32%) (n = 469) 22 min 36 max I/A I = 264 (61%) A = 170 (39%) (n = 434) 25 min 39 max A A = 153 (100%) (n = 153) 29 min 44 max A A = 96 (100%) (n = 96) 40 min 57 max A A = 29 (100%) (n = 29) 46 min 65 max A A = 23 (100%) (n = 23) 54 min 74 max I/A I = 583 (48%) A = 621 (52%) (n = 1,204) 30 min 45 max DISTRIBUTION OF FY 2007/08 CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES WITHIN THE FELONY PUNISHMENT CHART (CONTINUED ON NEXT SLIDE)

DISTRIBUTION OF FY 2007/08 CONVICTIONS AND SENTENCES WITHIN THE FELONY PUNISHMENT CHART (CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS SLIDE) Offense Class Prior Record Level Total I 0 Points II 1-4 Points III 5-8 Points IV 9-14 Points V Points VI 19+ Points F I/A I = 391 (63%) A = 231 (37%) (n = 622) 14 min 18 max I/A I = 367 (51%) A = 347 (49%) (n = 714) 16 min 19 max I/A I = 209 (45%) A = 260 (55%) (n = 469) 18 min 22 max A A = 312 (100%) (n = 312) 20 min 25 max A A = 71 (100%) (n = 71) 27 min 32 max A A = 45 (100%) (n = 45) 31 min 38 max I/A I = 967 (43%) A = 1,266 (57%) (n = 2,233) 18 min 22 max G I/A I = 537 (75%) A = 178 (25%) (n = 715) 11 min 14 max I/A I = 910 (72%) A = 360 (28%) (n = 1,270) 13 min 16 max I/A I = 545 (55%) A = 449 (45%) (n = 994) 14 min 17 max I/A I = 278 (39%) A = 436 (61%) (n = 714) 17 min 21 max A A = 146 (100%) (n = 146) 18 min 22 max A A = 98 (100%) (n = 98) 25 min 31 max I/A I = 2,270 (58%) A = 1,667 (42%) (n = 3,937) 15 min 19 max H C/I/A C = 1,474 (53%) I = 985 (35%) A = 335 (12%) (n = 2,794) 5 min 7 max I/A I = 2,714 (74%) A = 940 (26%) (n = 3,654) 7 min 8 max I/A I = 1,300 (56%) A = 1,031 (44%) (n = 2,331) 8 min 10 max I/A I = 698 (37%) A = 1,179 (63%) (n = 1,877) 10 min 12 max I/A I = 120 (21%) A = 447 (79%) (n = 567) 13 min 16 max A A = 479 (100%) (n = 479) 18 min 21 max C/I/A C = 1,474 (12%) I = 5,817 (50%) A = 4,411 (38%) (n = 11,702) 10 min 12 max I C C = 1,724 (100%) (n = 1,724) N/A C/I C = 1,799 (59%) I = 1,265 (41%) (n = 3,064) N/A I I = 1,267 (100%) (n = 1,267) N/A I/A I = 495 (47%) A = 558 (53%) (n = 1,053) 6 min 8 max I/A I = 93 (35%) A = 175 (65%) (n = 268) 8 min 10 max I/A I = 72 (24%) A = 227 (76%) (n = 299) 9 min 11 max C/I/A C = 3,523 (46%) I = 3,255 (42%) A = 897 (12%) (n = 7,675) 7 min 9 max TOTAL C/I/A C = 3,198 (46%) I = 2,232 (32%) A = 1,518 (22%) (n = 6,948) 41 min 53 max C/I/A C = 1,799 (18%) I = 5,520 (57%) A = 2,390 (25%) (n = 9,709) 32 min 41 max I/A I = 3,321 (59%) A = 2,347 (41%) (n = 5,668) 31 min 39 max I/A I = 1,534 (34%) A = 2,950 (66%) (n = 4,484) 27 min 35 max I/A I = 213 (17%) A = 1,014 (83%) (n = 1,227) 29 min 37 max I/A I = 72 (7%) A = 991 (93%) (n = 1,063) 31 min 38 max C/I/A C = 4,997 (17%) I = 12,892 (44%) A = 11,210 (39%) (n = 29,099) 31 min 40 max