Research on Sentencing The Search for Reform, Volume I (1983) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Sentencing Policies and Their Impact on Prison Populations
5 Sentencing Policies and Their Impact on Prison Populations
Pages 225-258
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 225... ...
These, in turn, may be affected by demographic changes in the population, changes in demographic-specific crime rates, legislatively established sentencing policies, police and prosecutorial policies, judicial decision-making practices, the exercise of authority by prison officials in awarding and revoking good time, and parole boards' release and revocation policies. The panel examined the relationship between sentencing policies and prison populations because anticipation of the impact on prison of existing and alternative sentencing policies makes explicit the choices among levels of punitiveness and their costs and is an important aid to responsible policy making.
|
From page 226... ...
Between 1972 and 1981, net state prison populations increased by 89 percent, from 174,470 to 330,307 inmates. Between 1939 and 1970 the median state prison incarceration rate was 98.8 per 100,000 civilian population; in 1972 this rate had fallen to 84, but by 1978 it had risen to 124, an increase of 48 percent in 6 years; by December 31, 1981, it had climbed to 144, a further increase of 16 percent in 3 years (U.S.
|
From page 227... ...
227 Go Ct of m o ._ Ct i_ o ._ Ct o o Cal ._ Pa Ct V)
|
From page 228... ...
Between 1977 and 1980, federal prison populations dropped, principally due to a change in emphasis in the Justice Department that sharply reduced prosecution of auto theft and bank robbery cases and increased resources for prosecution of white-collar crime, major narcotics violations, organized crime, and political corruption cases, all of which take longer to convict and result in shorter sentences. PRISON CAPACITY AND CONDITIONS OF CONFINEMENT The dramatic increases in prison population have not been accompanied by corresponding increases in prison capacity, resulting in overcrowding and a decline in living standards in prisons.
|
From page 229... ...
In addition, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.Foundation, legal challenges to major prisons were pending in 9 other states (Criminal Justice Newsletter, 1982~. A congressionally mandated national study of prison inmates and facilities found that 61 percent of federal prisoners, 65 percent of state prisoners, and 68 percent of prisoners in local jails had less than 60 square feet of floor space, the minimum standard promulgated by the Commission on Accreditation for Corrections (Mullen et al., 1980:61, 75~.
|
From page 230... ...
The dramatic increases in prison populations, as well as changes in sentencing policies, raise two major questions for institutional management: What is the general effect of crowded prison conditions on inmate health and behavior and on institutional management? What is the effect of determinate sentences on institutional programs, offender misconduct, and disciplinary procedures?
|
From page 231... ...
Further, there is a distinction between social density, the number of occupants per living unit, and physical 4 Conditions of high density were found to impair fertility and reproduction in mice (Christian, 1960~; to disrupt maternal ties, lead to homosexuality, and produce social withdrawal in rats (Calhoun, 1966a,b) ; and to cause increased aggression and emotionality, prostration, convulsions, and death in several mammalian species (Ader et al., 1963; Barnett et al., 1960; Bullough, 1952; Calhoun, 1956, 1962; Christian, 1960; Keeley, 1962; Rosen, 1961; Turner, 1961~.
|
From page 232... ...
found both sheer population size and increased density in prisons associated with negative effects, including disproportionate increases in rates of disciplinary infractions, violent death, suicide, and death of inmates more than 50 years old. In sum, research is just beginning to sort out the complex and often overlapping effects of social and physical density, crowding, and institutional size on inmate perceptions, morale, health, and behavior.
|
From page 233... ...
; compare housing types explore individual and group differences in reaction to high-density living arrangements; and develop a wider variety of measures of behavioral effects to supplement attitudinal measures. 233 Determinate Sentencing and Institutional Programs Under indeterminate sentencing policies, corrections institutions developed a broad range of rehabilitation programs, including vocational, educational, and social skills development; individual and group therapy; and partial physical custody (i.e., work release and placement in halfway houses)
|
From page 234... ...
examined the effects on program participation of setting presumptive parole release dates within 120 days of admission to prison. Comparing program participation by an experimental group (randomly assigned prisoners given presumptive parole release dates)
|
From page 235... ...
His interview and observational data indicate that determinacy has not been the answer to prison unrest that its supporters had hoped, nor has knowledge of a fixed release date led directly to increases in misconduct ~ In South Carolina, judges have the discretion of sentencing offenders to terms with fixed release dates (via a "split sentence" requiring that an offender serve a specified portion of the total sentence in prison) or to long maximum terms with the expectation of earlier parole release.
|
From page 236... ...
In California, the change from indeterminate to determinate sentencing both eliminated the parole board that previously set parole release dates and reinstituted the use of good time. The law left untouched the authority of corrections officials to refer serious misconduct to the district attorney for prosecution as a new offense and their ability to alter the quality of time served by means of a variety of sanctions, including isolation and segregation.6 Between 1970 and 1979, serious disciplinary infractions of all types rose steadily in California prisons.7 Since implementation of DSL in July 1977, however, forfeiture of good time as a disciplinary mechanism has been used modestly, but it is gradually increasing.
|
From page 237... ...
and the change from an indeterminate to a determinate sentencing system." An apparent trend in both states is reliance on disciplinary devices that affect the quality rather than the amount of time in prison, principally through reclassification of inmates and the resulting transfers among housing units that vary in degree of security. This is viewed as having two advantages for prison administrators: it does not increase the prison population, and it has a more direct and immediate effect on the inmate, which is viewed as a more effective deterrent to misconduct.
|
From page 238... ...
Such a perspective, however, may be impractical during the 1980s when prisons are at or near capacity and substantial additional prison space is unlikely to be available soon. Consequently, consideration of policy changes likely to significantly increase prison population should weigh the desirability of the change in light of available prison capacity and the costs of increasing that capacity.
|
From page 239... ...
Thus, whether considering policy changes or assessing current policies, projection of the impact on future prison populations of existing and alternative practices is a necessary component of sound public policy formulation. In making prison population projections, three factors must be kept in mind: the amount of time necessary for the full effect to be felt, the amount of compliance, and the nature and composition of the prison population.
|
From page 240... ...
Extrapolations of Time-Serzes Data Simple linear extrapolations of future prison population based on recent trends have often been used by researchers and corrections planners. Over the last decade, however, forecasting procedures have become more sophisticated than trend analyses (see Box and Jenkins, 1976; Granger and Newbold, 1977; Nerlove et al., 1979~.
|
From page 241... ...
First, in projecting future prison populations, they often include variables in the model that are more difficult to project than prison population itself. Use of the unemployment rate, for example, in the absence of accurate projections of that rate, adds little to one's ability to project prison populations.
|
From page 242... ...
While the absence of sentencing policy variables could theoretically be remedied by generating demographic-specific conviction rates by offense type and then applying sentencing variables to them, data systems found in most jurisdictions do not provide sufficient information to permit estimation of conviction rates that are demographic- and offense-specific. Disaggregated Flow Models Disaggregated flow models permit detailed disaggregated examination of future prison populations.
|
From page 243... ...
The projections to the year 2000, reflecting the strong effect of the postwar baby boom on the criminal justice system, suggest that arrest rates in Pennsylvania will peak about 1980, prison commitments will peak in 1985, and prison population will peak in 1990, then gradually decline. Because the projections ignore possible policy changes and the likely adaptive responses in the criminal justice system to increasing population pressures on the prison system, they are likely to be increasingly inaccurate the farther they extend in time.
|
From page 244... ...
In using the microsimulation to project long-term future population, it is important that the microsimulation be augmented by projections reflecting anticipated changes in the size and composition of the cases that serve as input to the simulation. ESTIMATING THE EFFECTS OF SENTENCING POLICY CHANGES ON PRISON POPULATIONS Since sentencing policies are shaped and implemented in states (or in some instances at a local level)
|
From page 245... ...
Actors in the criminal justice system follow a variety of adaptive strategies that may affect the number of commitments and time served under a new policy. Responses by judges to a mandatory minimum sentence law might include, for example: literal interpretations, with prison sentences, for all who satisfy the conditions of the law, for the specified mandatory minimum sentence; increased sentences of up to the new required minimum for all who formerly went to prison but continued sentences of probation for those previously sentenced to probation (perhaps through agreement to a plea to a lesser charge)
|
From page 246... ...
The difference in projected populations reflects the effect of a new policy. Both projections of prison populations that do not include consideration of policy changes and those designed specifically to examine the effects of particular policy choices permit fuller appreciation of the factors that affect prison populations, provide estimates of the ranges for those populations, and encourage the development of an ongoing monitoring system that includes data on the behavior of participants and the flow of offenders through the criminal justice system.
|
From page 247... ...
Increasing prison populations are costly in terms of both capital outlays to expand capacity and increases in direct operating expenditures (cash outlays for purchase of noncapital goods and services)
|
From page 248... ...
, postulates that prison construction is itself a stimulus to prison population expansion. In this model, expanded prison capacity affects sentencing decisions, resulting in more prisoners to fill that capacity, renewed population pressures, and further construction.
|
From page 249... ...
Errors in the study include an excessively simplistic formulation of the problem and associated statistical model; failure to test the sensitivity of the computed results to undue influence by several extreme data points; a serious computational error in calculating the univariate estimates of the coefficients; a highly questionable assumption that there were no changes in prison capacity in years when no new facilities were opened; inadequate correction for errors associated with serial correlation in a model including lagged dependent variables; and failure to analyze the aggregate data at a state level to discern whether the conclusions were reflected in individual states. While the results of the reanalysis do not demonstrate that there is no causal relationship between prison capacity and prison population indeed, anecdotal evidence supports such a relationshi~it is clear that the relationship is complex, that the construction decision rests on a number of factors that stimulate or discourage building, that conditions vary greatly from state to state, and that further research is needed to explain the prison construction-prison population relationship.
|
From page 250... ...
In the early 1970s, when prisons in most states were not under population pressure, a variety of alternative programs were initiated to alter traditional case processing by prosecutors, provide alternative sanctions to prison and jail confinement, reduce the use of secure confinement facilities, and provide alternatives to continual confinement in state prisons. The initiatives included pretrial diversion, restitution and community service programs at all stages of the criminal justice process, increased use of probation and intensive community supervision, development of halfway houses, early release programs, and statewide community corrections legislation.
|
From page 251... ...
One study that examined the impact of community-based correctional programs on prison populations (Hylton, 1980) found that prison populations increased significantly between 1962 and 1979 in Saskatchewan, Canada, despite the introduction of community corrections programs.
|
From page 252... ...
(Strathman et al., 1981) suggests that CCA-supported programs were being used to augment local sentencing options, previously limited to jail and probation but were having negligible impact on state prison populations.
|
From page 253... ...
Thus far, destabilizing policy changes have been limited: in 1980 the legislature increased the mandatory minimum sentence for possession and use of a firearm but has defeated several more drastic bills, and the commission has withstood pressures to increase sentence severity. As a result, Minnesota was one of the few states to reduce prison population in 1980 and in the first half of 1981 (U.S.
|
From page 254... ...
Little, 1981~. Whatever the other shortcomings of parole boards, their ability to manage prison population size is a valuable feature at a time when the number of inmates exceeds prison capacity.
|
From page 255... ...
Special commutations have been used by 5 states Georgia, Maryland, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyomin~to reduce prison populations by releasing large numbers of inmates, generally those imprisoned for is There are several types of clemency: pardons, which usually involve a recognition of guilt but the need to mitigate the penalty (or remove a civil disability) ; commutations, which substitute a less severe punishment for that originally imposed (often reducing a minimum sentence, thereby making the offender eligible for earlier supervised parole release)
|
From page 256... ...
In Illinois, for example,, the Director of Corrections has wide power to reward a prisoner who performs meritorious service by granting up to 90 days additional good time. Although the effect of good-time provisions may not be realized immediately, and good time poses a greater risk of arbitrary application than uniformly applied emergencypower release provisions, it can reduce prison populations.
|
From page 257... ...
Consistent application of such criteria should relieve crowding, particularly in maximum security institutions and, by increasing opportunities for program participation and "normalization," should lead to swifter movement of inmates through the prison system. IMPACT OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES In the face of crowded prisons, rising prison populations, court orders to reduce crowding and improve prison conditions, and determinate sentencing laws that limit system flexibility, policy makers in every state must develop their own strategies to maintain a balance between population and capacity through a combination of construction to expand capacity, increased use of alternatives to incarceration, and systematic use of inflow and release control mechanisms.
|
From page 258... ...
In a situation of sudden and severe overcrowding or an emergency such as a natural disaster, a prison release mechanism permits reduction of all terms or only those of certain types of offenders by a fixed amount of time to provide immediate relief to the corrections system, while intake controls cannot deal with prison populations after inmates are committed. Furthermore, if social attitudes or sentencing policies change, leading to different sentences for offenders whose offenses are similar but who are convicted several years apart, these differences can be addressed by a parole board or some other early release mechanism.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.