Truth in sentencing refers to the manner in which ';good time'; relates to parole eligibility in the case of felonies and release dates in the case of misdemeanors. In most jails, there is a system in place in which an offender can stand to do only one half to one third of his sentence, and most states have ';good time'; systems in place in prisons that can result in a person only doing a third to one half of his actual sentence.
Over the past decade or so, a number of victims rights groups have opposed these systems on the presumption that they are dishonest and that if juries understood how little time an inmate might do, then they might be inclined to raise their recommended sentences. Their position also implies that a sentence that may be imposed by a judge amounts to a fraud on the public, which is only told about the sentence rather than the real amount of time the offender may serve. The truth in sentencing movement amounts to an attempt to abolish parole and to force the prison system to keep their inmates incarcerated for the entire duration of their sentences.
My opinion is thus: it's unrealistic.
In order to accomplish it, state legislatures would have to build a whole bunch of new prisons, house inmates in county jails or other alternative facilities, or they would have to completely revamp most of the sentencing ranges provided for in their penal codes. For different reasons, neither option is politically viable. The first option is just too expensive. Too, the good time systems exist because of prison over crowding and because without the hope of parole, there is precious little incentive for an inmate to behave. So unless we want more prisons, more inmates, and less safety and control in those prisons, abolishing parole is a rotten idea. Our parole system at present is to a great extent the result of federal interference in state prison operations anyway. The federal courts were responding to exactly the sort of over crowding in prisons that would necessarily result from the abolition of parole. In other words, it was the feds who created the revolving door in state prison systems in the first place, and there is no reason to believe that federal courts would behave any differently today.
Rewriting the sentencing scheme in the various penal codes across the nation is also unrealistic because this would necessarily result in lower sentences for most crimes. Where some nonviolent crimes are concerned, especially drug crimes, I personally think I'd support it, but the average voter and crime victim doesn't usually understand the nature of the problem. So, proposing sentencing reductions like that would probably be a non-starter in a political sense in most states. In fact, the current political atmosphere tends to favor even harsher sentences.
Wisconsin adopted a very strict truth in sentencing scheme back in the late 90's and it is proving to be a disaster. This system requires an inmate to do 100% of his original sentence and apparently it was put in place without a revamping of the sentencing standards that already existed in the state penal code. It has resulted in a system that is brutally unfair and extravagantly expensive, and which removes all incentive from the inmates. It thereby greatly increased prison misbehavior and inmate despondency. Privately, some sources in the prison system itself have stated that the new scheme has created a crisis in the Wisconsin prison system and will likely cost the taxpayers an additional 1.8 billion dollars for inmates admitted through 2025. The feds are picking up part of this tab now, which means that the taxpayers are paying for it in both state AND federal taxes.
For these two primary reasons, I think that Truth in Sentencing is a political and legal concept that is DOA.
No comments:
Post a Comment