Impacts of Criminal History Enhancements on Prison Bed Needs and Costs

2019 ◽  
pp. 152-162
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts ◽  
Rhys Hester
Keyword(s):  
Criminal History ◽  
Fiscal Impact ◽  
Nonviolent Offenders ◽  
High Magnitude ◽  
Prior Record ◽  
Fiscal Impacts

This chapter shows how sentencing data can be used to quantify the substantial fiscal impacts of high-magnitude criminal history enhancements, overall and with respect to the problematic aspects of those enhancements identified and discussed in previous chapters. It uses data from Minnesota and several other states as examples because of the excellent sentencing data available for those states. The chapter first examines the total fiscal impact (added bed needs and costs) that results from the sentence-enhancing effects of criminal history on prison commitment and prison duration decisions. It then quantifies the fiscal impacts of the identified problematic aspects of prior record enhancements: disproportionately severe prison durations imposed on high history offenders, imprisonment of nonviolent offenders recommended for prison solely because of their elevated criminal history scores, imprisonment of aging offenders who are recommended for prison due to their high history scores, and racially disparate sentences that result from criminal history enhancements.

Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Criminal History ◽  
Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
Prison Inmates ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Racial Disproportionality ◽  
Nonviolent Offenders ◽  
Offense Severity ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Prior Record ◽  
Prison Populations

This chapter provides an overview of the book, including the following major topics: why this neglected topic is so important; the ubiquity of prior record enhancement in modern sentencing systems, and their particularly powerful roles in U.S. jurisdictions with sentencing guidelines; the wide variations in the criminal history scoring formulas used in guidelines, with respect to matters such as which prior crimes and other factors are included, the weight each receives, and the degree to which a high score increases recommended sentence severity; the unclear punishment rationales for such enhancements; and the numerous negative consequences of these enhancements— increasing the size and expense of prison populations, undermining the important goal of punishment in proportion to offense severity, increasing the need for prison beds to house property and other nonviolent offenders, generating large numbers of aging prison inmates, contributing to racial disproportionality in prison populations, and undermining offenders’ efforts to reintegrate into society.

Adverse Impacts on Offense-Based Proportionality and Prison-Use Priorities

2019 ◽  
pp. 114-127
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts ◽  
Rhys Hester
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Criminal History ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Risk Level ◽  
Prison Inmates ◽  
Violent Crimes ◽  
Nonviolent Offenders ◽  
Prior Record ◽  
Older Offenders ◽  
Prison Populations

This chapter shows how powerful criminal history enhancements undermine important goals of guidelines reforms. First, these enhancements undermine the goal of making punishment severity proportional to the seriousness of the offense for which the offender is being sentenced; if prior record receives more weight in sentencing, conviction offense seriousness receives less weight. Second, these enhancements counteract the goal of reserving expensive prison beds for offenders convicted of violent crimes—powerful criminal history enhancements shift the balance of prison admissions and inmate stocks toward property, drug, and other nonviolent offenders. Third, prior record enhancements change the composition of prison populations by risk level—older offenders often have more prior convictions but declining recidivism risks, so criminal history enhancements increase the number of aging, low-risk prison inmates. The formulaic nature of such enhancements also over-predicts the risk level of some younger offenders. The chapter concludes with proposals for limiting these adverse effects.

The Model Regime

2019 ◽  
pp. 207-220
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Racial Disparities ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Nonviolent Offenders ◽  
Prior Record ◽  
Counting Rules ◽  
First Offenders

This chapter outlines a model regime of prior record enhancement (PRE), designed to promote more rational, parsimonious, and humane sentences. It provides general principles and specific rules reflecting what is known about PRE justifications, costs, benefits, and adverse consequences. The principles specify which punishment purposes justify PRE, while also recognizing the overarching importance of maintaining proportionality to conviction offense seriousness, ensuring that PREs are necessary and cost-effective, minimizing racial disparities and imprisonment of aging and nonviolent offenders, avoiding interference with offender efforts at desistance, and striking a reasonable balance between rule and discretion. The model’s PRE counting rules exclude juvenile and misdemeanor priors, convictions more than 10 years old, upweighting of felonies based on their severity or similarity, and custody status points. First offenders receive substantial sentence mitigation, after which PRE magnitude increases modestly and is capped. High-history offenders are punished no more than twice as severely as first offenders.

What Other Factors Indicate High or Low Recidivism Risk?

2019 ◽  
pp. 60-71
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Prediction Accuracy ◽  
Criminal History ◽  
Older Age ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Limited Extent ◽  
Criminal Thinking ◽  
Prior Record ◽  
Salient Factor

If prior record enhancements are justified as a way to manage offender risk, policymakers need to consider other, non-record risk factors that may improve risk-prediction accuracy. This chapter examines the limited extent to which guidelines systems have incorporated such factors—usually as a ground for departure or other adjustment after the recommended sentence has been determined based on current offense and prior record. The chapter summarizes the offense factors and non-criminal-history offender factors, such as the offender’s current age and criminal thinking patterns, that criminological research has found to be good predictors of the risk of re-offending, and that are often included in widely used risk assessment instruments such as the Salient Factor Score, CSRA, and LSI-R. Very few of these non-record risk factors have been given a formal role in guidelines sentencing. The chapter argues that judges should be allowed to consider some of these factors, especially older age.

scholarly journals Spatial Patterns in Fiscal Impacts of Environmental Taxation in the EU

Economies ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 104
Author(s):  
Vít Pászto ◽  
Jarmila Zimmermannová ◽  
Jolana Skaličková ◽  
Judit Sági
Keyword(s):  
Cluster Analysis ◽  
Spatial Patterns ◽  
Environmental Taxation ◽  
Environmental Tax ◽  
K Nearest Neighbors ◽  
Fiscal Impact ◽  
Eu Countries ◽  
Tax Revenues ◽  
Fiscal Impacts ◽  
The Eu

There are several reasons for environmental taxation implementation. Besides its environmental impact, the main reason for such taxation is its fiscal impact, particularly in generating revenues of public budgets. The main goal of this paper is to observe possible spatial patterns in fiscal impacts of environmental taxation in the EU countries, and to depict the groups of countries with the same (or similar) fiscal impact of these instruments on public budget revenues, including environmental and economic characteristics. Two methods of cluster analysis are used, Ward linkage and K-nearest neighbors (spatial) cluster analysis to observe potential geographical links or implication of fiscal impact. The study is performed for the years 2008 and 2017. Based on the results, we can say that in the year 2008, the EU countries were divided into “the west” and “the east”, with some exceptions. The western countries were characterized by high environmental tax revenues, the eastern countries by low environmental tax revenues. For 2017, the situation is different. The border between old and new EU member states is not so abrupt and clear. The results show higher diversification between EU countries concerning the fiscal impacts of environmental taxation.

Analyzing Variation in Prior Record Penalties Across Conviction Offenses

2017 ◽  
Vol 64 (7) ◽  
pp. 831-855 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Cassidy ◽  
Jason Rydberg
Keyword(s):  
Sex Offenders ◽  
Length Distribution ◽  
Criminal History ◽  
Sentence Length ◽  
Empirical Examination ◽  
Focal Concerns ◽  
Prior Record ◽  
Conditional Sentence ◽  
Focal Concerns Perspective ◽  
The Impact

The focal concerns perspective suggests that criminal history and the nature of the offense interact to influence judicial assessments of community threat, yet this question has not been subject to systematic empirical examination. Drawing on 4 years of data (2007-2010) from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing ( N = 75,676), we utilize linear quantile mixed models (LQMM) to examine the impact of prior record on the conditional distribution of sentence lengths across violent, property, drug, and sex offenders, controlling for the effects of important individual and judicial district-level covariates. The results indicate that prior record penalties differ both between and within conviction offense types across the conditional sentence length distribution. Substantive, theoretical, and methodological implications are discussed.

Are Record-Based Enhancements a Cost-Effective and Fair Way to Reduce Crime?

2019 ◽  
pp. 72-88
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effective ◽  
Criminal History ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Deterrent Effect ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Age And Gender ◽  
Prior Record ◽  
Specific Individual ◽  
And Gender ◽  
The Relationship

Even if a guidelines criminal history score, other prior record formula, or some combination of record and non-record factors accurately reflects the offender’s recidivism risk, sentence enhancements based on that formula are not justified unless the increased penalty will prevent further offending in a cost-effective, fair, and legal manner. This chapter summarizes the voluminous literature on the relationship between punishment severity and crime. That literature shows that increased penalty severity has at best a modest deterrent effect on offending rates, and is as likely to cause more crime as it is to prevent crime by means of general and specific (individual) deterrence and/or incapacitation. The chapter also discusses whether such enhancements—particularly when based on non-record factors such as age and gender—are unfair to offenders, and whether non-record, risk-based enhancements are consistent with constitutional requirements of proof beyond reasonable doubt and jury trial under the Blakely v. Washington doctrine.

Punishing for the Past (Sometimes): Judicial Perspectives on Criminal History Enhancements

2021 ◽  
pp. 003288552110296
Author(s):  
Rhys Hester
Keyword(s):  
Criminal History ◽  
Sentence Length ◽  
Criminal Record ◽  
Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
Common View ◽  
The Past ◽  
Prior Record ◽  
The Common

Prior criminal record is routinely cited as one of the primary determinants of sentencing, and the common view is that prior record was a leading factor in non-guidelines jurisdictions going back decades. Yet, recent findings from a non-guidelines state failed to conform to this account. This study uses interviews with judges from a non-guidelines state to understand the role of prior record in sentencing in an unstructured sentencing state. This study also reexamines some of the early sentencing guidelines formation literature and finds some indications that pre-guidelines, prior record was not universally an instrumental predictor of sentence length.

The Effects of Prior Convictions on Sentence Severity

2019 ◽  
pp. 89-113
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts ◽  
Rhys Hester
Keyword(s):  
Criminal History ◽  
Prior Record ◽  
The Impact ◽  
To Receive ◽  
The Way

This chapter explores the degree to which a higher criminal history score increases the severity of recommended and imposed sentences in U.S. guidelines systems. The impact of criminal history on sentence severity is measured in several ways. One set of measures assesses the extent to which a high criminal history score translates into increased sentencing severity—by causing the offender to be recommended for immediate commitment to prison, and/or by increasing the duration of the recommended prison or other custodial sentence. Other measures of prior record enhancement magnitude relate to the criminal history formula itself—the components of the score and the way in which each component is weighted. These rules determine how quickly offenders acquire a high score, triggering the most severe impacts, and they also determine which offenders are most likely to receive high scores. The chapter concludes with proposals for regulating the magnitude of prior record enhancements.

Prior Record and the Risk of Recidivism

2019 ◽  
pp. 41-59
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase ◽  
Julian V. Roberts
Keyword(s):  
Criminal History ◽  
Prior Record ◽  
General Proposition ◽  
Increases In Risk ◽  
Grid Based

It is generally assumed that prior convictions provide a useful proxy for the offender’s risk of committing further crimes, and as a general proposition that assumption is well supported by research. But as this chapter shows, there is much less research on how well particular prior record formulas predict recidivism risk. This chapter identifies the elements of guidelines criminal history scores that appear to be designed to measure risk, reviews the limited research assessing the accuracy of criminal history scores and score components as predictors of subsequent offending, and examines the closeness of fit between predicted increases in risk, as the criminal history score rises, and the increments in sentence severity that are prescribed by grid-based guidelines systems. The chapter also argues against the use of rigid prior record enhancement formulas, and in favor of giving judges power to adjust sentences to take into account case-specific variations in recidivism risk.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document