Opening the Door for More: Assessing the Impact of Sentencing Reforms on Commitments to Prison Over Time

Since the early 1970s, U.S. states have adopted a series of sentencing reforms that have substantially altered sentencing and release policies by limiting discretion of judges, parole boards, and/or prison administrators. The current study assesses shifts in year-to-year changes in new commitments and parolees returned to prison within all 50 states from the years 1972 to 2008. The study tests the theory that sentencing reforms resulted in increased commitments to prison due to changes in the structures of sentencing and not due to increased crime. Data was analyzed using panel regression with robust standard errors, fixed effects, and conditional change scores. By treating six main sentencing reforms as dynamically interacting, the results suggest that certain combinations of sentencing reforms significantly increase new commitments while the number of parolees returned to prison was not meaningfully affected. The analysis further indicates that the combinations that the reforms appear in at the state-level influence the magnitude of the impacts of reforms.     

DETERMINATE SENTENCING AND ABOLISHING PAROLE: THE LONG-TERM IMPACTS ON PRISONS AND CRIME*

We estimate the impact of determinate sentencing laws (DSLs) on prison commitments, prison populations, and Uniform Crime Report crime rates. Ten states enacted these laws between 1976 and 1984; all abolished parole and most established presumptive sentences. The research uses a multiple time-series design that, among other benefits, controls for national trends and facilitates the use of control variables. We found that DSLs are clearly associated with prison population growth in only one state, Indiana, and with major reductions in two, Minnesota and Washington. The remaining laws show no evidence of increasing populations and may have reduced them somewhat. The estimated impacts on commitments are similarly varied. There is little or no evidence that DSLs affect crime. Earlier studies evaluating individual DSLs are often criticized for poor research designs, and our findings support the criticisms.     

Courtroom Context and Sentencing

This study provides an evaluation of the major policy shift in sentencing practices over the past half-century – namely the shift from indeterminate to determinant sentencing policies and the use of sentencing guidelines. The theoretical literature on courtroom organization and focal concerns informs this evaluation of determinate sentencing practices in Florida. Drawing from prior theoretical and empirical research, hierarchical linear and generalized linear models are estimated to assess courtroom effects on individual level sentencing outcomes. The findings document that location matters when sentenced in Florida. Specifically, the likelihood of being sentenced to prison and the length of sentence varies across counties, even after controlling for individual case and offender characteristics and a variety of contextual characteristics. Additionally, the influence of legal and extra-legal factors on prison in/out and sentence length decisions varies significantly across counties. Several court characteristics, including court size, caseload pressure and trial rate assert direct influence on a county’s likelihood of prison in/out and mean sentence length decisions.

     

SELECTIVE INCAPACITATION,THREE STRIKES,AND THE PROBLEM OF AGING PRISON POPULATIONS: USING SIMULATION MODELING TO SEE THE FUTURE*

Research Summary: The growth of prison populations over the last three decades is a great source of concern for policy makers and observers. One mechanism by which this growth occurs is via sentencing reforms that extend length of stay for certain categories of offenders. This has the effect of aging prison populations, which is problematic for many reasons. Apart from the increased financial burdens entailed in caring for older prisoners, it is also important to consider the intent of reforms in evaluating them. Of late, sentencing reform has become increasingly focused on the selective incapacitation of dangerous offenders. Policies that have the effect of aging the prison population are problematic from this perspective due to the diminishing returns realized with respect to incapacitation as offenders age. Dynamic systems simulation analysis is employed to investigate the likely consequences of recent sentencing reforms that increase length of stay for some offenders. These analyses indicate that the effects of recent reforms may not be as dramatic as some observers have predicted, but they suggest that the consideration of alternatives to incarceration for elderly offenders is warranted from the standpoint of cost considerations as well as that of selective incapacitation. Policy Implications: The results indicate that California's Three Strikes law will not accelerate the rate of growth of the elderly prison population. However, even without increasing the proportional representation of elderly prisoners, the number of elderly prisoners is expected to grow substantially over the next three decades. These prisoners will strain criminal justice system resources while presenting little public safety threat. State criminal justice policy makers and their constituents should closely examine laws that impose very long stays without discretionary release, as these statutes may contribute to the production of elderly prisoners. This problem is particularly pronounced in Three Strikes and other habitual offender laws that use retrospective methods to identify habitual offenders. Additionally, the effects of reforms lengthening stay for some offenders must be considered in light of cumulative effects of sentencing reform resulting in changes to the demographic structure of the prison population overall. Dynamic systems simulation modeling is presented as a valuable policy‐making tool, as it allows the policy analyst to examine the potential impacts of laws in the absence of data suitable for conventional statistical analyses.     

Demographically disaggregated projections of prison populations

The need for improved long-run projections of prison populations has increased in recent years because of record-high numbers of inmates and severe overcrowding in state and federal prisons, and because of the growing importance of changing demographic factors in influencing corrections populations. A model is developed for projecting: general population demographics; demographic- and offense-specific arrest rates, imprisonment probabilities, and times served; and then the size and composition of prison populations. Model parameters are estimated for Pennsylvania and are shown to be sensitive to demographic factors, particularly age and race. Projections of future arrests, prison commitments, and prison population are developed for Pennsylvania using projections of demographic changes in the state's population. Arrests are expected to peak in 1980, prison commitments are expected to peak in 1985, and prison populations are expected to peak in 1990, with the subsequent declines reflecting the maturation of the postwar baby boom children out of the highly crime-prone ages and, somewhat later, out of the highly prison-prone ages.     

JUDGES' UNEQUAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO EXTRALEGAL DISPARITIES IN IMPRISONMENT*

How do judges in the same court system contribute differentially to extralegal disparities in sentencing? Analyses of felony sentencing in an urban Ohio trial court uncovered two distinct but equal-sized groups of judges that differed in the magnitude of extralegal correlates to imprisonment. Within the group of judges reflecting substantive extralegal correlates to prison sentences, demographic correlates (based on defendants' race, sex, age, and the interaction between them) were more pervasive across judges relative to social demographic correlates (based on education, residence length, and means of financial support). The directions of significant relationships involving a defendant's race, age, and means of support also were inconsistent across judges. These interjudge differences suggest that analyses of cases pooled across judges at either the jurisdiction or the state level might over- or understate the relevance of particular attribution theories of sentencing disparities.     

Split sentencing in georgia: A test of two empirical assumptions

Recent research on felony sentencing in the nation's trial courts has highlighted a type of sentence in which a prison term is coupled with a probation period. Under these so-called “split sentences,” convicted felons serve a term of incarceration, are released (possibly) on parole, and eventually come under the concurrent jurisdiction of both parole and probation authorities. Although such a sentence may serve a variety of purposes, it is at least conceivable that judges use the prison/probation combination as a way to respond to prison overcrowding and public pressure for punitiveness.

This article reports a study of split sentencing in Georgia from 1976 to May 1985. Drawing on more general research on felony sentencing in the state's Superior Courts, the authors test two empirical assumptions about split sentencing: (1) the perception that split sentencing has increased over time and (2) the importance of the total term (i.e., the prison/probation combination) over the actual severity (i.e., the time specified for incarceration). These assumptions surfaced in extended interviews with court and community authorities in selected judicial circuits across the state.

The empirical tests of these two assumptions consist of an examination of aggregate sentencing patterns and multivariate analyses of two conceptions of the split sentence. The data provide limited support for the two empirical assumptions. There was no evidence that felony courts in Georgia had increased their reliance on split-sentence terms. Aggregate evidence, however, suggested that judges might use split sentencing as a way to balance the competing pressures of prison overcrowding and the demand for punitiveness. Multivariate analyses offer mixed support for propositions on the importance of the total term. The study concludes with a consideration of the implications for public policy and for research on racial discrimination, sentencing, and trial court processes in general.     

“Fixed” Sentencing: The Effect on Imprisonment Rates Over Time

Objective

Sentencing guidelines, statutory presumptive sentencing, determinate sentencing, truth in sentencing, and three strikes are important components of the criminal justice system. The main purpose behind a relatively-fixed sentence is to remove judicial discretion by insuring that convicted felons receive a reasonably-assumed sentence depending on the crime committed. The current study assessed shifts in year-to-year changes in incarceration rates within all 50 states from the years 1965–2008 due to the adoption of sentencing reforms.

Methods

The study tests two competing theories, a normative theory and critical theory of the expected effects of reforms on imprisonment. Data was analyzed using panel regression with unit-specific fixed effects, conditional change scores, panel corrected standard errors, and a new measure of reforms.

Results

This study, possibly due to differences in model specification, ran counter to a number of previous studies and suggests some “front-end” sentencing reforms and “back-end” release changes are, on average, related to changes in imprisonment.

Conclusions

The study concluded, that when significant, reforms increased more than decreased prison growth in comparison to indeterminate sentencing. Additionally, the analysis concludes that changes in release mechanisms and parole decision structures are driving increased growth more than changes in sentencing structures.     

Predicting sentencing outcomes and time served for juveniles transferred to criminal court in a rural northwestern state

In the past few decades, the focus of the juvenile justice system shifted from the best interests of the child to the best interests of society. One component of the shift was an increase in the waiver of juveniles to adult criminal court. Prior research suggested juveniles were typically sentenced to short prison sentences or probation in the adult criminal court. On the other hand, more recent evidence suggested sentencing outcomes had varied by offense type. In the present study, the author examined what occurred in a primarily rural northwestern state. Additionally, multivariate analyses were used to examine which factors aided in predicting sentencing outcomes and time served for this population.     

Does Mandatory Diversion to Drug Treatment Eliminate Racial Disparities in the Incarceration of Drug Offenders? An Examination of California’s Proposition 36

Objective

This paper addresses previous shortcomings in the literature on racial disparities in incarceration for drug offenders by taking advantage of a change in sentencing policy in California and a rich administrative dataset that is able to create a sample of comparable White and Black offenders.

Method

We use a nonparametric propensity weighting approach to identify similarly situated White and Black male offenders charged with drug-related offenses. We combine this approach with a difference-in-differences model to estimate the effect that a change in California sentencing law for convicted non-violent drug offenders had on racial disparities in prison and drug treatment dispositions.

Results

We find substantial reductions in the probability of a prison sentence after the policy change, but not differentially for Blacks. Blacks remain more likely to go to prison than similarly situated Whites after the policy, although the policy does lead to more referrals to treatment for Blacks.

Conclusions

This paper shows that even after comparing Blacks and Whites in similarly situated contexts that racial disparities in prison commitments remain after sentencing law changes that mandate diversion to drug treatment. The results suggests that addressing racial gaps in the commitments to state prisons will likely require more than shifting the eligibility of drug convictions for prison, as accumulated criminal histories are the primary driver of prison sentences. This means that expanding diversion options from prison alone will not reduce the racial gap in commitments to prison for drug offenses more than incrementally.

     

THE POWER OF DIVERSION: INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS AND SENTENCING DISPARITY UNDER PRESUMPTIVE GUIDELINES*

Fiscal constraints and shifting political climates in corrections have recently led to a renewed interest in intermediate punishments. Despite their growing prevalence, though, relatively little empirical research has examined the judicial use of alternative sanctions as a sentencing option. By using 3 years of data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS), this study investigates little‐researched questions regarding the use of sentencing alternatives among offenders and across contexts. Results indicate that male and minority offenders are the least likely to receive intermediate sanctions, both as a diversionary jail or prison sentence and as a substitute for probation. The probability of receiving an intermediate sanction also varies significantly across judges and court contexts and is related to county‐level funding for these programs, among other factors. Findings are discussed as they relate to contemporary theoretical perspectives on the perceived suitability of intermediate punishments and on the unique role that offender agency plays in the sentencing of these cases. Directions for future research are discussed.     

The Paradox of Probation: Community Supervision in the Age of Mass Incarceration

After four decades of steady growth, U.S. states' prison populations finally appear to be declining, driven by a range of sentencing and policy reforms. One of the most popular reform suggestions is to expand probation supervision in lieu of incarceration. However, the classic socio‐legal literature suggests that expansions of probation instead widen the net of penal control and lead to higher incarceration rates. This article reconsiders probation in the era of mass incarceration, providing the first comprehensive evaluation of the role of probation in the build‐up of the criminal justice system. The results suggest that probation was not the primary driver of mass incarceration in most states, nor is it likely to be a simple panacea to mass incarceration. Rather, probation serves both capacities, acting as an alternative and as a net‐widener, to varying degrees across time and place. Moving beyond the question of diversion versus net widening, this article presents a new theoretical model of the probation‐prison link that examines the mechanisms underlying this dynamic. Using regression models and case studies, I analyze how states can modify the relationship between probation and imprisonment by changing sentencing outcomes and the practices of probation supervision. When combined with other key efforts, reforms to probation can be part of the movement to reverse mass incarceration.     

The Evolution of the Determinate Ideal of Sentencing: An Illinois Case Study

The past two decades have witnessed enormous changes in state sentencing structures. While many of the fundamental tenets of the determinate sentencing reform movement have changed since the 1970s, one bedrock principle has remained constant: the belief that the sentencing power of post-conviction administrators must be curbed. Yet, in many jurisdictions, the goal of the reform movement has been frustrated as sentencing discretion has merely shifted from parole boards to prison officials. This article presents a case study from Illinois to illustrate how institutions' adaptive responses to externally imposed reforms can enlarge the gap between the rhetoric and the reality of public policy.     

Identifying possible sources of inmate crowding in U.S. jails

This note presents results from an aggregate-level study of several possible correlates of inmate crowding in county jails during 1983 (n=505) and 1988 (n=522). Findings revealed that jurisdiction variables (court caseload, degree of urbanism) and state variables (sentencing practices, degree of prison inmate crowding) are at least as significant as jail variables (type of standards, frequency of inspections, enforcement system for standards, inmate population composition) for predicting the degree of inmate crowding. This suggests that policies designed to reduce crowding should be sophisticated enough to account for the possible effects of all three groups of variables.     

Trial Penalties in Federal Sentencing: Extra‐Guidelines Factors and District Variation

The guarantee of the right to a jury trial lies at the heart of the principles that underlie the American criminal justice system's commitment to due process of law. We investigate the differential sentencing of those who plead guilty and those convicted by trial in U.S. District Courts. We first investigate how much of any federal plea/trial sentencing differences are accounted for by substantial assistance to law enforcement, acceptance of responsibility, obstruction of justice, and other Guideline departures. Second, we investigate how such differences vary according to offense and defendant characteristics, as well as court caseloads and trial rates. We use federal sentencing data for fiscal years 2000–02, along with aggregate data on federal district court caseload features. We find that meaningful trial penalties exist after accounting for Guidelines‐based rationales for differentially sentencing those convicted by guilty plea versus trial. Higher district court caseload pressure is associated with greater trial penalties, while higher district trial rates are associated with lesser trial penalties. In addition, trial penalties are lower for those with more substantial criminal histories, and black men. Trial penalties proportionately increase, however, as Guideline minimum sentencing recommendations increase. We also supplement our analysis with interview and survey data from federal district court participants, which provide insights into the plea reward/trial penalty process, and also suggest important dimensions of federal court trial penalties that we cannot measure.     

The Unintended consequences of sentencing reforms: Using social chain theory to examine racial disparities in Female imprisonment

The current study uses social chain theory to examine the potential unintended effects of sentencing reforms on racial disparities in female imprisonment. Our analysis measures changes in the relative odds of Black to White female imprisonment using the Relative Rate Index (RRI) through panel regression modeling on 40 states from 1983 to 2008. Our final models indicate that four types of sentencing reforms had unintended perverse effects on racial disparities in prison admissions while Truth in Sentencing laws increased racial disparities in time-served. Eighteen combinations of sentencing reforms also significantly impacted disparities. Theoretical and policy implications are also discussed.     

The judicial response to crime and the criminal: A utilitarian perspective

This paper examines the hypothesis that the sentencing decision of the criminal court is consistent with utilitarian principles and that the judiciary uses the length of incarceration as an instrument for the maximization of societal well-being. A theoretical model is developed, whose principal arguments are offender and offense attributes, resource costs, the availability of alternative sanctions, and the general crime rate. Four questions are considered: (i) How does a utilitarian court respond to a general increase in crime? (ii) How does the availability of alternative sanctions affect the length of incarceration ? (iii) How does a utilitarian court respond to offenders who are more likely to recidivate? (iv) How does the court respond to offenders who commit more serious offenses? The model is empirically evaluated, using cross-sectional data for the state of Georgia for individuals sentenced to prison in 1978 for a UCR index offense. The theoretical model provides few specific behavioral rules for the court to follow. Answers to the foregoing four questions are shown to depend upon both the efficacy of sanctions and the cost of the administration of those sanctions. It is not possible to predict, for example, how a utilitarian court should respond to a rise in crime or how it should respond to offenders who are likely to commit more serious offenses. The empirical analysis shows that, in fact, the sentence length varied inversely with the general offense rate, with the likelihood of imprisonment, and with the length of postprison probation. The evidence also indicates that sentences vary with the individual's original record but not with the offender's age or race. With the exception of possible gender bias, the court's sentencing behavior was consistent with utilitarian principles.     

Crime,cash, and limited options: Explaining the prison boom*

Research Summary An analysis of a state panel of prison populations from 1977 to 2005 shows that the best predictors of prison populations are crime, sentencing policy, prison crowding, and state spending. Prison populations grew at roughly the same rate and during the same periods as spending on education, welfare, health and hospitals, highways, parks, and natural resources. Current and lagged values of state spending on prison construction also accounted for a substantial amount of variation in subsequent prison populations. Public opinion, partisan politics, the electoral cycle, and social threats seem to have had little effect on the number of prisoners. Policy Implications The availability of publicly acceptable alternatives to incarceration may not be sufficient to reverse course. Federal funding of alternatives—but not prisons—would provide states with the financial incentive to reduce prison populations.     

The Gender Gap in Sex Offender Punishment

This paper tests theoretical arguments that suggest court actors hold gendered views of sex offenders that result in a gender gap in sex offender punishment, where women who commit sexual offenses are treated more leniently than their male counterparts. We test this argument with precision matching analyses using 15 years of data on all felony sex offenders sentenced in a single state. Results indicate that gender disparities in sex offender sentencing exist and are pervasive across sex offense types. Specifically, male sex offenders are more likely to be sentenced to prison, and given longer terms, than female sex offenders. Findings are similar across sex offense severity and whether the offense involved a minor victim. These findings suggest that female sex offenders are treated more leniently than their matched male counterparts, even in instances of more serious sex offenses and those involving minor victims. Findings support theoretical arguments that contend that court decision-making is influenced by legally-irrelevant characteristics and raise questions about the source of gendered views of sex offenders and their effects on punishment approaches. Findings also raise questions about the virtue of get-tough sentencing policies that provide leeway for such dramatic variation across different groups of people.