Truth-In-Sentencing

Criminology ◽  
2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brian J. Ostrom ◽  
Charles W. Ostrom
Keyword(s):  
Criminal History ◽  
Sentence Length ◽  
Good Time ◽  
The Public ◽  
Sentencing Reform ◽  
Parole Board ◽  
Determinate Sentencing ◽  
Rehabilitation Potential ◽  
Final Sentence ◽  
Truth In Sentencing

Truth-in-sentencing (TIS) describes a range of justice system policies that eliminate discretionary parole release and significantly reduce good-time accrual rates in an attempt to make sentencing both more certain and transparent. TIS policies are most often proposed as a means for ensuring that the amount of time an offender actually serves in prison is closely aligned with the sentence originally imposed by the court—the court, the victim, and the public know how long the offender will be imprisoned. These policies follow several decades of shifting sentencing philosophies and practices: Indeterminate sentencing and powerful parole boards characterized the early 1970s; paroling authorities fell out of favor with the introduction of determinate sentencing models in the late 1970s; and sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences became commonplace during the 1980s. The adoption of TIS became one of the major objectives for sentencing reform at both federal and state levels in the 1990s. Generally, the model of TIS holds that sentencing authority rests with the court and that sentences should be served in full. Only modest reductions in sentence length based on satisfactory behavior while incarcerated are acceptable. Philosophically, TIS draws largely on a “just deserts” philosophy, in which sentences are fixed proportionally on offense seriousness and, to a lesser extent, on prior criminal history. This philosophy contrasts with indeterminate models that split authority over the final sentence between the court and some other entity, such as a parole board. In those systems, the court sentences the offender to a specific term, within a range, or to an unspecified period, and a parole body determines the actual release date—often based upon rehabilitation potential.

Sentencing Policies and Practices in Minnesota

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard S. Frase
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
Sentencing Reform ◽  
Prison Overcrowding ◽  
Sentencing Policy ◽  
Truth In Sentencing ◽  
Policies And Practices

This essay evaluates the origins, purposes, operation, and evolution of Minnesota’s sentencing guidelines system, implemented in 1980. Topics examined include key guidelines provisions, related statutes, charging and sentencing practices, departure rates, interpretive case law, and correctional populations. The essay concludes that the goals of this pioneering sentencing reform have largely been achieved: punishments have become more uniform and proportionate; policy formulation is more comprehensive and informed by data; sentencing has been coordinated with available correctional resources to avoid prison overcrowding and set priorities in the use of prison beds; there is a greater degree of “truth in sentencing;” prison sentences are used relatively sparingly; and the guidelines remain fairly simple to understand and apply. Minnesota has also achieved a sustainable balance between conflicting sentencing purposes, between uniformity versus flexibility, and in the powers of the sentencing commission, the legislature, courts, and practitioners to control sentencing policy and case outcomes.

Comparing Disciplinary Infraction Rates of North Carolina Fair Sentencing and Structured Sentencing Inmates: A Natural Experiment

1999 ◽  
Vol 79 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
JOHN M. MEMORY ◽  
GUANG GUO ◽  
KEN PARKER ◽  
TOM SUTTON
Keyword(s):  
North Carolina ◽  
Natural Experiment ◽  
Negative Binomial ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Negative Binomial Regression ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Prison Inmates ◽  
Binomial Regression ◽  
Truth In Sentencing ◽  
Using Data

Using data collected from June 1, 1995, to August 30, 1996, the researchers compared the disciplinary conviction rates of North Carolina prison inmates admitted during the study period before the truth-in-sentencing law and inmates admitted during that period under the truth-in-sentencing law. Based on deterrence theory, the researchers hypothesized that pre-truth-in-sentencing inmates, who could lose time off for good behavior and parole as results of a disciplinary conviction, would have higher disciplinary conviction rates than truth-in-sentencing inmates. Truth-in-sentencing inmates, with shorter sentences, could lose neither time off for good behavior nor parole as a result of disciplinary conviction. Cox regression and negative binomial regression procedures using control variables identified in the research literature generally supported the research hypotheses.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document