Friday, October 1, 2010

How Jail Time is Determined Sometimes OR.... Why A Five Year Sentence Isn't Five Years

This article was written in March 2009 by David Muhlhausen, the Senior Policy Analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. This is what he had to say when he spoke before the Judiciary Committee of the Maryland House of Delegates Senate.
This might give alot of us a better understanding towards the reason why so many brutal people are allowed to walk the streets that we pay tax dollars towards to be safe!


The Problem of Lenient Sentencing

A very likely explanation for Maryland's high violent crime rate may be its sentencing system that is too lenient, especially for violent crimes. The concern over high crime rates and a failed rehabilitative model of corrections led federal and many state governments to reform their correctional systems. Many states have adopted "truth-in-sentencing" laws, where the goal is to ensure that offenders convicted of violent crimes actually serve most of their incarceration sentences.

In authentic truth-in-sentencing states, violent crime offenders sentenced to prison are required to serve at least 85 percent of their sentences with the possibility of early release for the remaining 15 percent of the sentence for good behavior. Upon completion of at least 85 percent of their prison sentences, offenders may be returned to society on supervised release.

While Maryland law requires violent crime offenders sentenced to prison to serve only 50 percent of their sentences, a recent case reported by The Baltimore Sun demonstrates the inadequacy of Maryland's system. One month after an offender was convicted of armed robbery, The Baltimore Sun reported that the son-in-law of the 66-year-old robbery victim was notified of the convicted offender's forthcoming parole hearing.[2] The armed robber was sentenced to 10 years in prison with all but three years suspended by the judge. The parole hearing, set for this summer, will determine if the armed robber is eligible to be paroled in February 2010 because the time the offender served in jail awaiting trial counts toward his suspended sentence. Thus, a ten-year sentence was reduced by the judge to only three years. Now Maryland's corrections system may release the armed robber after only serving 1.5 years--15 percent of the original sentence. The General Assembly should consider ending the state's revolving door of justice that does not serve the interests of law-abiding citizens.

Reasons to Support Truth-in-Sentencing

Truth-in-sentencing can be justified for several reasons. First, long prison terms for serious and violent crimes are just. Second, incapacitation and deterrence works.

Longer prison terms for serious and violent crimes are just. Maryland's current sentencing system grants judges and parole boards too much discretion in sentence lengths and release decisions. This discretion all too often comes at the expense of public safety. In addition, Maryland's diminution credit system makes sentences too lenient for serious and violent offenders. The diminution credit system allows an inmate to earn up to 20 days off his sentence for every month of good behavior and participation in rehabilitation services. When the inmate's diminution credits equals the number of days remaining on the inmate's sentence, the inmate is eligible for mandatory release.

Real truth-in-sentencing laws make incarceration terms more meaningful by ensuring that offenders actually serve most of their sentences. The adoption of truth-in-sentencing by Maryland will help restore the credibility of courts by making sentencing more uniform and ensuring that offenders actually served almost all of their original sentences.

Incapacitation and deterrence works. During the 1970s and 1980s, state officials from across the nation recognized that the rehabilitative model of corrections did not work. Correctional systems no longer focused on the ideal of rehabilitation at the expense of public safety. Rehabilitation programs were deemed ineffective.[3] Deterrence and incapacitation became the primary mission of correctional systems. Thus, federal and many state governments adopted such reforms as determinate sentencing, truth-in-sentencing, and increased sentence lengths.

The switch to determinate sentencing and increased sentence lengths prevents crime through the effects of incapacitation and deterrence. The incapacitation effect reduces crime because offenders confined in prison from the rest of society are unable to harm innocent citizens. Criminals in prison simply cannot harm society.

In addition, determinate sentencing, combined with increased sentence lengths, produces greater levels of deterrence than occurred under the rehabilitative model. Deterrence theory supposes that increasing the risk of apprehension and punishment for crime deters individuals from committing crime. Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker's seminal 1968 study of the economics of crime recognized that individuals respond to the costs and benefits of committing crime.[4] In short, incentives matter.

Over the years, several studies have demonstrated a link between increased incarceration and decreases in crime rates. After controlling for socioeconomic factors that may influence crime rates, research based on trends in multiple jurisdictions (states and counties) over several years indicates that incarceration reduces crime significantly.[5]

Professor Joanna M. Shepherd of Emory University found that truth-in-sentencing laws that required violent felons to serve up to 85 percent of their sentence reduced violent crime rates.[6] These laws reduced county murder rates per 100,000 residents by 1.2 incidents. Assaults and robberies were reduced by 44.8 and 39.6 incidents per 100,000 residents, respectively. Rapes and larcenies were reduced by 4.2 and 89.5 incidents per 100,000 residents.[7]

Other studies demonstrate the crime-reducing effect of incarceration. Professor William Spelman of the University of Texas at Austin estimates that the national drop in crime during the 1990s would have been 27 to 34 percent smaller without the prison buildup.[8] In another study, Professor Spelman analyzed the impact of incarceration in Texas counties from 1990 to 2000.[9] The most significant factor responsible for the drop in crime in Texas was the state's prison expansion.

Professor Steven Levitt of the University of Chicago found that for each prisoner released from prison, there was an increase of almost 15 reported and unreported crimes per year.[10]

Two studies by Thomas B. Marvell of Justec Research in Williamsburg, Virginia, and Carlisle E. Moody of the College of William and Mary support these findings on the effects of incarceration. In a 1994 study of 49 states' incarceration rates from 1971 to 1989, Marvell and Moody found that about 17 crimes (mainly property crimes) were averted for each additional prisoner put behind bars.[11] In a study using national data from 1930 to 1994, Marvell and Moody found that a 10 percent increase in the total prison population was associated with a 13 percent decrease in homicide, after controlling for socioeconomic factors.[12]

The Cost of Corrections in Maryland

Opponents of adopting authentic truth-in-sentencing laws in Maryland may argue that the state cannot afford to implement such policies because of budget constraints. However, public safety is the primary responsibility of state government. In fiscal year (FY) 2007, corrections made up only 4.4 percent of Maryland's total expenditures (see Chart 2).[13] Comparatively, elementary and secondary education and Medicaid comprised 18.7 percent and 18.5 percent of total expenditures, respectively.[14] The amount of funds Maryland spends on corrections is little compared to other less important government activities.

Conclusion

Maryland faces a serious violent crime problem. Some members of society clearly need to be in prison for the safety of the rest. As long as that is the case, authorities must do what it takes to incarcerate those people who commit serious and violent crimes. Authentic truth-in-sentencing is one such policy that can make Maryland communities safer.

To read the entire report and see the charts on crime go to http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/Why-Maryland-Needs-Truth-in-Sentencing

http://www.heritage.org/

6 comments:

  1. Anonymous10:55:00 AM

    So basically if someone is sentenced to 3 years and they behave themselves while in prison they are eligible to get out in just over a year.

    ReplyDelete
  2. That's just about the way it reads for me. Key words: good behaviour!! Isn't it funny how thugs figure that out while behind bars and seem to forget when exposed to freedom again.

    We have a saying down here where I live....."ain't that some shi*!"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous11:23:00 AM

    That about sums it up, jmmb. The ones I just love are the ones who find God behind bars.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous3:04:00 PM

    What's it really matter anyway when murderer's are allowed to plea and walk away with a 7 year sentence. That's what Jermaine Wright was sentenced to for the brutal rape and murder of a Pennsylvania girl in Ocean City a few years back.
    He's back in prison now only because he got caught violating his probation.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous12:54:00 PM

    Sit in on court session's in Worcester County and watch as the State and the judges make deals with habutual criminals. It happens all of the time and Joel Todd has put revolving doors on the court rooms.

    The same offenders with lengthy records continue to go in and out of the revolving door's because of "deals" made with the State.

    Victims of the crimes are left in the dark as to what is going on until the very last minute when Todd or one of his people annoucne to the Judge that they've made a deal. The criminals are allowed to make a plea for much lesser charges and walk free with probation when they are already on probation for previous crimes commited. If they recieve a sentence it's much lesser than what they should have gotten and they maybe spend a year in jail. Once the criminal is free they just go out and do the same crimes or worse.

    Criminals in Worcester County know that when they have to pay a visit to Todd's courtrooms they will not be fully prosecuted. The criminals know that a deal can always be made. All criminals have some kind of dirt on other criminals and they save their information until they have to talk to Todd.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon 12:54 You just hit then nail right on the head! I bet that has been done more times than it hasn't. Criminals work the systems themselves now and have been for a very long time. Pocomoke has seen recently their share of murders done by those that have done just that! Quite a few times a murder has been comitted shortly after the criminal has been released from jail.

    Personally, I don't think anyone in the court system is concerned about the safety of the public. Police officers try so hard to make arrests only to have the case thrown out OR a "deal" made. Attorney's don't care....most times agree to a deal in exchange for information that probably doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

    Court cases get delayed and when it does come to trial it is usually the victims family AND the public that end up suffering all over again.

    I'd like to know the circumstances behind the murder in Pocomoke this past week. Do criminal just chase a victim now for the purpose of stabbing?

    ReplyDelete

All comments are the sole responsibility of the poster