Sentencing Guidelines Reform - Research Paper Example

?Recent reforms in sentencing guidelines There have been a number of reforms in sentencing policies within the recent years, with policies being enacted in at least 22 different states within the United States. The reforms have focused on expanding the treatment options to drug offenders, diverting them to other programs instead of incarceration. Likewise alternatives have been looked at for offenders of non-violent crime, such as community service. The Need for Sentencing Reforms The prison population has been rapidly growing for many years, with an increase of 7% in the period from 2000 to 2005 (King, 2007). The cost per day per prisoner of keeping criminals incarcerated is significant making the increases in prison population detrimental to the budgets of many states. In addition, there are costs associated with building new prisons if the population increases to that extend, and the associated space and land use. This places heavy demand on policy makers to try and determine sentencing laws and reforms that will limit the prison population. Punishments for crime are developed for multiple reasons including political, such as trying to win votes in an election, however one of the predominant drivers is decreasing the level of crime. The potential outcomes for committing a crime play a large role when individuals decide whether to follow through with a crime. For example, crime and punishment can be viewed as part of an economic model, where those who consider crimes weigh up the benefits of the crime versus all the potential costs. If the punishment for crime is high compared to the reward, then they are more likely to reconsider, this is especially true if the likelihood of prosecution and punishment is high (Reynolds, 1990). For this reason changes in sentencing must look at a balance between keeping the number of prisoners low, but still providing effective punishment and deterrent for crimes. In addition, punishment for crime can act to change behavior in criminals. For example, drug offenders are often driven largely by a need which comes from their addiction, and thieves may be responding to greed. Prison life may change this desire in a portion of those who are incarcerated, giving them time to think about who they are and what they are doing. Programs within prison and outside of it that focus on breaking addictive behaviors, such as treatment options for drug offenders can also be very productive methods of reducing crime rate. This is because without the addiction driving them, many criminals that committed drug offenses will no longer have the same strong need or desire to. Finally, incarceration is not an effective solution in all cases. When a crime is committed out of a perceived need, particularly in the case of drug addiction, incarceration acts as a punishment, but does nothing to reduce the likelihood of re-offense. When the criminal is released, the drivers that caused him to offend in the first case are still present, and re-offense is very likely. Drug Based Sentencing Reforms Sentencing reform legislation has focused on criminals who have committed low level offenses. This section will examine some of the types of legislation in more detail. Thirteen states passed legislation that looked at increasing the available options for drug treatment for the large number of non-violent drug-based crimes. Of these states, nine passed laws that created or extended sentencing diversion for drug offenders. Sentencing diversion involves sentencing sending the criminal to a facility or a program that worked with them in treating their drug problem. This was already present in a number of states, but sentencing reforms worked to clarify ambiguities within the law, thus allowing sentencing diversion to be used in an increased number of cases. Louisiana established a different sentencing diversion model for drug crimes than is used in other states. The model in this state allows for the sentence to be diverted and the individual to begin the treatment program without a statement of guilt, or a plea being entered. If they successfully complete the treatment then the charge is dismissed, and it cannot be brought into account for any later convictions (King 2007). This is an interesting model as it removes most of the cost of committing the crime for the criminal. While this may increase crime rate through the lower penalty, it also works to decrease it by helping individuals overcome drug dependence, making the need to commit crimes to obtain drugs no longer present. An alternative that was employed by a number of states was to introduce legislation that increased the access of individuals to drug courts, while also working to ensure that operation across different drug courts was standardized. The last alternative that was used by some states was to increase the options for treatment for individuals that were already incarcerated. The aim of this was to work towards treatment and early parole of individuals convicted of non-violent drug-based offenses. Alternative Sentencing Sentencing reforms were also introduced that offered alternative types of sentencing to individuals convicted of other types of crimes. For example, in Oklahoma, legislation was passed that allow the prosecutor to call for the case to be transferred to community-based sentencing. Limitations of the Reforms One of the major limitations of the recent sentencing reforms is that they focus on reducing the time spent in prison for low-level offenders. While this is good, it neglects long-term sentencing. In many cases, the sentence handed down is harsh for the crime and the increased length does nothing for changing the motivation of the criminal, nor does it serve any public purpose. Drastically reducing the sentences for some of these crimes would not affect the crime rate, and would improve on expenditure and on limiting the number of incarcerated prisoners. Despite desire to reduce the levels of prisoners, sentencing reforms along with already established policies have resulted in the continued growth of prison populations in many states. This is because of new laws such as mandatory sentencing for many drug offenses as well as other crimes, and sentencing provisions such as ‘three strikes and you’re out,’ where life without parole is a mandatory sentence on the third offense (for certain crimes such as attempted murder and first degree assault). Harsher sentencing for sex offenders that was adopted by a number of states in 2006 also adds to this (King, 2007). Conclusion A large number of sentencing reforms have occurred recently, particularly in the period of 2004 to 2006. These reforms aimed to keep rates of crime at the present level or reduce them, while reducing the number of incarcerated individuals across the country. This was necessary because of the cost involved in keeping criminals incarcerated for extended periods of time, because of the limited space available and the ineffectiveness of incarceration in some cases. The reforms focused mostly on non-violent, low-level offenses, particularly those that involve drugs. Some looked at offering treatment during incarceration, at offering alternative sentencing, or increasing access to drug courts. For non-drug cases, some states introduced legislation that allowed community-based sentencing rather than incarceration. While these reforms are effective at reducing the prevalence of these types of criminals in prison, and reducing levels of re-offense, they do little for prison population overall. In order to address the increasing problem of overpopulation within prisons, sentencing reforms also need to take into account long-term sentencing, perhaps reducing these terms. There is some precedent for introducing sentencing guidelines specifically for juveniles, as this age group is especially vulnerable to peer pressure, and the consequences of choices made at this age can carry right through their lives. As juveniles are impressionable, alternative sentencing such as community-based sentencing initiative may serve both as punishment and to reduce offense rate more effectively than incarceration would. References King, R. S. (2007). Changing Direction? State Sentencing Reforms Sentencing Project. Research and Advocacy for Reform. . Washington DC. Reynolds, M.O. (1990). Crime pays, but so does imprisonment. The Journal of Social, Political & Economic Studies, 15(3), 259-300. Read More