The State of Sentencing 2007
Developments in Policy and Practice
Ryan S. King
January 2008

For further information:
The Sentencing Project
514 10th St. NW
Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 628-0871
www.sentencingproject.org

This report was written by Ryan S. King, Policy Analyst, of The
Sentencing Project, with research assistance from Abbey
Marshak.
The Sentencing Project is a national non-profit organization
engaged in research and advocacy on criminal justice policy
issues. Support for the organization has been provided by the
Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation, Ford Foundation,
Gimbel Foundation, Herb Block Foundation, JEHT Foundation,
Jewish Funds for Justice, Open Society Institute, Public
Welfare Foundation, an Anonymous Donor at Rockefeller
Philanthropy Advisors, Sandler Family Supporting Foundation,
The Starfish Group, Wallace Global Fund, and individual
contributors.
The Sentencing Project works for a fair and effective criminal
justice system by promoting reforms in sentencing law and
practice and alternatives to incarceration. To these ends, it
seeks to recast the public debate on crime and punishment.
Copyright © 2008 by The Sentencing Project. Reproduction of this
document in full or part in print or electronic format only by permission of
The Sentencing Project.

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

OVERVIEW

I

n recent years, “tough on crime” policies that previously dominated the criminal
justice legislative agenda have ceded ground to a more balanced consideration of
how states can most effectively allocate resources to maximize public safety. 1

Many states are facing a moment of reckoning in which the fiscal cost of past policies
now threatens to affect vital state services. Thus, legislative efforts to address prison
overcrowding, reform parole and probation supervision, expand drug sentencing
diversion, and establish reentry assistance are playing a role in shaping the criminal
justice agenda. Although legislative sessions seldom close without some penalty
enhancements being added to the criminal code, the tone and focus of many state
legislative bodies has demonstrably shifted and, as a result, there is increasing
opportunity for reform.
This report highlights a number of important criminal justice policy developments
that occurred at the state level during 2007. 2 These include:
•
•
•
•
•

•

Nine states created oversight committees or task forces to address sentencing
laws, prison overcrowding, indigent defense, and /or the provision of reentry
services;
Two states reformed mandatory sentencing enhancement provisions, while
three states introduced substantial reform proposals to mandatory sentencing
provisions for drug offenses that passed one or both houses in the legislature;
New Jersey repealed its death penalty and replaced it with life in prison
without the possibility of parole;
Seven states amended parole policies and enhanced reentry preparation;
Four states reformed criminal justice policies pertaining to juveniles; these
include changing the age of majority for the purposes of criminal sentencing
and addressing clemency practices for persons sentenced as an adult for a
crime committed as a juvenile;
Three states modified “Romeo and Juliet” provisions of sexual offense laws.

1

Ryan S. King, Changing Direction? State Sentencing Reforms 2004-2006, 2007, The Sentencing Project; Ryan S. King and Marc Mauer, State
Sentencing and Corrections Policy in an Era of Fiscal Restraint, 2002, The Sentencing Project; Judith A. Greene, Positive Trends in State-Level
Sentencing and Corrections Policy, 2003, Families Against Mandatory Minimums; Daniel F. Wilhelm and Nicholas R. Turner, Is the Budget Crisis
Changing the Way We Look at Sentencing and Incarceration?, 2002, Vera Institute of Justice.
2

This report is not intended to be an exhaustive collection of state criminal justice legislation and policy reforms implemented during 2007.
Rather, it is meant to highlight selected legislative and policy developments that address critical challenges related to criminal justice.

2

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

Key Criminal Justice Policy Reforms and Legislation Passed in 2007
STATE

REFORM

ARKANSAS

Continued use of the Emergency Powers Act of 2003 to relieve crowding

CALIFORNIA

(1) Expanded early release program in local jails; (2) implemented “earned discharge”
program for certain persons on parole; (3) expanded reentry assistance; (4) restructured
juvenile justice system

COLORADO

(1) Created commission to evaluate sentencing policy; (2) established Juvenile Clemency
Board

CONNECTICUT

(1) Changed statutory threshold for adult status; (2) modified age limits for consensual sex
between teenagers

FLORIDA

Modified age limits for consensual sex between teenagers

HAWAII

(1) Expanded reentry programs; (2) expanded rehabilitation resources in prisons

INDIANA

Modified age limits for consensual sex between teenagers

LOUISIANA

(1) Established Louisiana Public Defender Board; (2) expanded substance abuse treatment

MAINE

Established committee to study sentencing practices

MARYLAND

Reformed mandatory minimum provisions by restoring parole eligibility for certain offenses

NEVADA

(1) Created commission to evaluate sentencing policy; (2) repealed mandatory sentencing

in prisons

enhancements for certain offenses; (3) expanded “good time” eligibility, implemented
intermediate sanctions for supervision violations; (4) reclassified jail capacity requirements
NEW JERSEY

Repealed death penalty

NEW MEXICO

Funded sentencing commission studies

OKLAHOMA

Established committees to monitor state reentry programs

PENNSYLVANIA

Directed Sentencing Commission to study effectiveness of mandatory minimum sentences

RHODE ISLAND

Changed statutory threshold for adult status (ultimately repealed)

WASHINGTON

Expanded reentry services

WISCONSIN

(1) Established task force to study racial disparity in the justice system; (2) expanded
substance abuse treatment options to reduce sentence length

Key Criminal Justice Legislation Introduced in 2007
STATE

REFORM

CALIFORNIA

Senate voted to establish a state sentencing commission

DELAWARE

House voted to repeal mandatory minimums for certain drug offenses

ILLINOIS

House voted to create a task force to study impact of drug free zones on racial disparity

KANSAS

Senate voted to establish a committee to study sentencing practices

MARYLAND

House and Senate voted to restore parole for certain drug offenses

RHODE ISLAND

House and Senate voted to repeal or reduce mandatory minimum sentences for certain
drug offenses

3

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES

The most common developments in 2007 were efforts to establish oversight
mechanisms for the criminal justice system through legislation, resolutions, and
executive orders. The committees established by these policies are charged with
examining the conditions of crime and punishment within a state, conducting
analysis, and making recommendations for improvement.
Colorado – Created Commission to Evaluate Sentencing Policy

HB 1358 established a criminal justice oversight committee, the Colorado
Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice, to review sentencing guidelines and
annually present recommendations to the three branches of state government. The
legislature concluded,
“[i]t is in the best interest of the public to engage in a comprehensive
evidence-based analysis of the circumstances and characteristics of the
offenders being sentenced to the Department of Corrections, the
alternatives to incarceration, the effectiveness of prevention programs,
and the effectiveness of the criminal code and sentencing laws in
securing public safety.”
The Commission, comprised of 26 appointed experts ranging from public defenders
to Department of Corrections representatives, is charged with conducting an analysis
of current sentencing practices and investigating alternatives to incarceration with the
dual mission of reducing recidivism and ensuring that criminal justice resources are
allocated effectively.

4

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

Nevada – Created Commission to Evaluate Sentencing Policy

With the passage of AB 508, Nevada established an Advisory Commission on the
Administration of Justice to evaluate the effectiveness of sentencing policy. More
specifically, the committee will examine the consequences of mandatory minimum
sentences for illegal substances, the effectiveness of these sentences in meeting
intended goals, the operations of the Department of Corrections and State Board of
Parole Officers, and the conditions of new specialty court models. It will also analyze
the juvenile justice system, with the ultimate goal of identifying strategies to reduce
recidivism. The commission is comprised of representatives from throughout the
criminal justice community. These include a representative of the Supreme Court of
Nevada, an advocate for incarcerated people, and a member of the State Board of
Parole Commissioners. The commission will meet at least once every three months
and submit its recommendations to the legislature at least every two years.

Other oversight committees were created in response to high recidivism rates.
While their findings sometimes parallel the sentencing policy commissions, their
mission and approach to research differs.
Oklahoma – Established Committees to Monitor State Reentry Programs

With the passage of HB 2101, Oklahoma sought to address the challenges of reentry
and recidivism in the state. The bill established two committees, the Reentry Policy
Council to ensure that reentry initiatives achieve the intended goal of easing
transition back into the community; and the Transformational Justice Interagency
Task Force, to identify best practices in reentry and to coordinate and encourage
faith-based and community-based programs. The Reentry Policy Council will review
corrections policies related to release, identify gaps in the provision of reentry
services, and recommend necessary reforms. The Transformational Justice
Interagency Task Force is charged with establishing benchmarks to reduce the
recidivism rate, coordinate the different agencies involved in reentry programming,
link pre- and post-release services, and encourage the use of family-based treatment
centers.

5

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

Additionally, two permanent funds were established with the act. The first, the
Reintegration of Inmates Revolving Fund will support faith-based reentry programs
through government grants. This part of the bill has been contentious and one state
legislator has asked the state attorney general to investigate whether a provision
earmarking funds for faith-based organizations can pass constitutional muster. The
second fund, the Transformational Justice Revolving Fund, awards bonuses to
correctional officers who have demonstrated improved recidivism rates.

Finally, some oversight committees were created to evaluate specific problems
within states’ criminal justice systems. Examples included:
Louisiana – Established Louisiana Public Defender Board

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, increased attention was paid to fundamental
failings in the Louisiana criminal court system. One of the most noteworthy was an
overworked, underfunded, and largely ineffective public defender system. As an
initial step intended to address long-standing problems in the public provision of
counsel, HB 436 creates the Louisiana Public Defender Board, which supersedes the
Louisiana Indigent Defense Assistance Board in exercising regulatory and supervisory
authority over the state public defender system. The Board will create 11 public
defender service regions that will coordinate assistance delivery to their constituency.
Each region will be managed by a district public defender. The legislation improves
the statewide organization of the public defender system that had been lacking in the
prior system.
New Mexico – Funded Sentencing Commission Studies

SB 611 awarded $50,000 each for two studies by the sentencing commission. The
first examines evidence of bias-based policing throughout the state. The second study
will survey parole participants and examine gender-specific parole models in order to
recommend best practices for the state.

6

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

Pennsylvania – Directed Sentencing Commission to Study Effectiveness of
Mandatory Minimum Sentences

HR 12 instructed the Pennsylvania Sentencing Commission to analyze the
commonwealth’s use of mandatory minimum sentences and measure its impact on
recidivism, cost-efficiency, and fairness in sentencing. The Pennsylvania House
noted that mandatory minimum sentences “significantly increase the cost of
corrections” by expanding the prison population, yet there remains a dearth of
knowledge regarding their overall effect on crime rates. The House expressed further
concern that the impact of mandatory minimum sentencing alters dynamics in the
courthouse by reducing judicial discretion, increasing the likelihood of plea bargains,
and rendering some individuals ineligible for certain rehabilitation programs in
prison. The study is expected to be completed within two years and will include
recommended reforms.
Wisconsin – Established Task Force to Study Racial Disparity in the Justice System

African Americans in Wisconsin are incarcerated at 11 times the rate of whites, the
fifth largest disparity in the country. In response to a 2007 report documenting
substantial racial disparities in incarceration rates among youth, Governor Jim Doyle
issued Executive Order 189, creating the “Commission on Reducing Racial
Disparities in the Wisconsin Justice System.” The commission is tasked with
determining if racial discrimination exists at any stage in the criminal justice system
and to recommend measures to reduce any unwarranted disparities. The
Commission is set to report its recommendations in January 2008.

7

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

The following are examples of legislative action taken in the wake of
recommendations from a prior oversight commission. Both use grants as a means
to fund new initiatives.
Maine – Established Committee to Study Sentencing Practices

With the passage of LD 1895, the Maine legislature adopted the recommendations
of the “Corrections Alternative Advisory Committee.” Included in the bill is the
establishment of community-based criminal justice planning committees, which are
intended to coordinate and monitor community corrections activities at the county
level. The law also established the “State Sentencing and Corrections Practices
Coordinating Council” to study and promote evidence-based sentencing practices
that balance the need for punishment, rehabilitation, and the protection of public
safety. Finally, the Community Corrections Fund was established to provide funding
to create and implement community corrections programs, and the Community
Corrections Incentive Fund was created to allocate grants for programs focused on
reducing recidivism.
Washington – Expanded Reentry Services

In 2006, the Washington legislature created the “Joint Task Force on Offenders
Programs, Sentencing, and Supervision” to review state sentencing and community
supervision programs’ impact on rehabilitation, public safety, and recidivism, and to
identify strategies for improvement. SB 6157, a comprehensive criminal justice bill
passed in 2007, incorporates some of these recommendations by addressing five key
areas related to reducing recidivism. First, the bill requires that each county perform
an inventory of its available reentry services. It also sets up a pilot program, the
Community Transition Coordination Network Program, in four counties to connect
reentering people to community resources. Next, the bill requires that an individual
reentry plan be developed for each incarcerated person to identify necessary areas of
assistance, and that s/he be returned to their county of origin upon release. The third
section of the bill mandates a review of work release programs to determine best
practices, the establishment of community justice centers, equitable distribution of

8

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

programs throughout the state, a review of qualifications for early release from
prison, and the creation of a legislative task force to review programs’ progress. The
fourth section of the bill increases educational opportunities within facilities by
requiring the Department of Corrections to pay for GED and high school graduation
programs and ensuring that post-secondary programs exist for incarcerated people
who are able to pay. Finally, the bill addresses housing upon release from prison by
limiting civil liability for landlords who rent to persons with a prior felony conviction
and establishing two pilot programs to provide transitional supportive housing
accompanied by other reentry services.

The following pieces of legislation represent noteworthy bills that were not passed
into law, but warrant attention as they present potential areas of future legislative
activity.
California – Senate, House Voted to Establish State Sentencing Commission

With the passage of the “Three-Strikes” law in 1994 and other “tough on crime”
sentencing legislation, California’s incarcerated population has grown to almost
double its capacity, with an expected 30% increase in the next 20 years to over
225,000. Insufficient health care and abysmal conditions have resulted in repeated
reprimands of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation by government
officials and independent observers, as well as the intervention of federal courts.
Thus, this year’s legislative session was active with criminal justice legislation. In
response to the state’s prison overcrowding, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
proposed the creation of a state sentencing commission to review California’s
criminal sentencing code and identify potential areas of reform. SB 110, as passed in
the Senate, would have established a California Sentencing Commission chaired by
the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court to create sentencing
recommendations for various offenses. The committee would have served as a
resource center for the study and analysis of sentencing policy and would be charged
with measuring the effectiveness of sentences imposed while also examining the
presence of inequities and discrimination in sentencing. Meanwhile, AB 160, as

9

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

passed in the General Assembly, would also have created a California Sentencing
Commission to serve much the same purpose as SB 110. The key difference between
the two bills is the degree of independence and authority that the recommendations
from the commission would carry. Despite substantial debate, neither bill garnered
enough support from the other house of the legislature to be passed.
Illinois – House Voted to Create Task Force to Study Impact of Drug-Free Zones on
Racial Disparity

Passed in the Illinois House, HR 153 would have created the Legislative Task Force
on Drug Free Zones to evaluate the effectiveness of increased penalties for drug
offenses in certain areas and the impact of these laws on the African American
community. The task force was suggested in the wake of a recent report by the
Illinois Consortium on Drug Policy, which documented the racially disparate effect
of the “war on drugs” during the 1980s and 1990s. The bill cited recent research
documenting the limited impact that drug-free zones have on the targeted
population, with less than 1% of cases actually involving children. Additionally,
urban areas where communities of color more frequently reside tend to have a greater
preponderance of drug-free zones. A recent evaluation of drug-free zones in New
Jersey found that 96% of persons receiving a sentence under these laws were African
American or Latino.
Kansas – Senate Voted to Establish Committee to Study State Sentencing Practices

As passed in the Senate, SB 391 would have established the Kansas Criminal Code
Recodification Commission. The commission was expected to review the current
sentencing guideline system and make recommendations to ensure proportionality of
crime and punishment. In addition, the committee would have conducted an
evaluation comparing Kansas’ recommendations with the sentencing provisions in
other states. Upon transfer to the House, the bill did not pass out of the
Appropriations Committee.

10

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

SENTENCING REFORM

Alternative to incarceration sentencing provisions for certain non-violent offenders
continue to gain popularity in the states as less expensive and more effective
options than incarceration.
Maryland – Reformed mandatory minimum provisions by restoring parole eligibility
for certain offenses

Maryland’s HB 1317 permits persons convicted of a burglary or daytime
housebreaking offense prior to October 1, 1994 and sentenced to a mandatory
minimum to have their case reviewed to determine parole eligibility.
Nevada – Repealed Mandatory Sentencing Enhancements for Certain Offenses

Prior to the 2007 legislative session, Nevada law required that mandatory
enhancements be applied upon conviction of certain felony offenses. For example, a
person convicted of a felony committed on school property would face the statutory
punishment for the charged conduct, plus a sentence enhancement equal to the
statutory punishment. Other offenses that warranted such a “double sentence”
enhancement include those committed with the assistance of a minor, certain
domestic violence offenses, and crimes against the elderly. Nevada’s comprehensive
AB 510 grants discretion to judges to apply shortened enhancements for these
crimes, generally between 1 and 20 years. There were calls for granting broader
discretion to judges for the purposes of sentencing, but the legislature ultimately
determined that the commission created by AB 508 would be making
recommendations in 2009 on the state of mandatory minimum sentencing and it
was prudent to wait for its report.

11

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

Nationally, momentum for reform of the death penalty continued in 2007. In recent
years, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions outlawing the execution of
persons suffering from mental retardation and those who were juveniles at the time
of their crime. In 2007, one state, New Jersey, took the significant step of repealing
its capital punishment law entirely.
New Jersey – Repealed Death Penalty

The passage of S171 by the New Jersey Legislature repealed that state’s death penalty
provision and replaced it with a sentence of life without parole. New Jersey became
the first state in more than 40 years to abolish capital punishment in the legislature.

Mandatory minimum sentences have greatly contributed to increasing incarceration
rates. The passage of a host of mandatory minimums for drug crimes in the 1980s
has resulted in the incarceration of thousands of low-level offenders for lengthy
prison terms. With costs of incarceration rising, policymakers are beginning to
revisit mandatory minimums in light of their questionable impact on crime and a
demonstrable link to prison overcrowding. Although none of the following bills was
passed into law in 2007, they demonstrate growing support for ambitious
legislation that would have repealed many mandatory minimum provisions.
Delaware – House Voted to Repeal Mandatory Minimums for Certain Drug Offenses

Delaware’s HB 71, passed by a large majority in the House, would have eliminated
mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenses. The bill, however, still
would have allowed for mandatory maximum sentences as a check on judges and
would have preserved guidelines to assist decision-making. Despite passing by a 2-1
margin in the House with bipartisan support, the bill did not pass out of the Senate
Executive Committee. It is uncertain whether the bill will reemerge in the legislative
session beginning in January 2008.

12

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

Maryland – House and Senate Voted to Restore Parole for Certain Drug Offenses

HB 992, passed in both houses, was vetoed by the governor. The bill would have
reduced mandatory minimum drug sentences by restoring parole eligibility to repeat
offenders who have not committed violent crimes. Governor Martin O’Malley wrote
in his veto message that signing the bill was “unnecessary and contrary to the
interests of public safety,” as drug activity “fuels violent crime and murder.”
Rhode Island – House and Senate Voted to Repeal or Reduce Mandatory Minimum
Sentences for Certain Drug Offenses

Passed in both houses but vetoed by the Governor, SB 207 would have significantly
reduced mandatory minimum sentences for many controlled substance charges; in
some cases, altogether eliminating them and imposing a lower, mandatory
maximum. The bill also eliminated mandatory minimum fines and replaced them
with maximums. Governor Don Carcieri vetoed the bill, stating that the increased
discretion given to judges would undermine the mandatory minimums that would
still exist, and that current law adequately preserves appropriate judicial power.
Despite being passed with the requisite number of votes necessary to override a
gubernatorial veto, the legislature declined to put the bill on its calendar in October
when it convened for a one-day special session to address other vetoed bills. A
renewed effort to pass mandatory minimum reform is already planned for the 2008
legislative session.

13

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

OVERCROWDING

Overcrowding has become a major challenge within American prisons as states
grapple with the effects of decades of severe sentencing laws and reduced reliance
on parole. Some states, such as California, have taken the approach of
appropriating substantial funds for prison construction. The California legislature
approved $7.4 billion in lease-revenue bonds to construct more than 50,000 prison
and jail beds in 2007. While the approach of expanding capacity to address
overcrowding was the dominant strategy of the 1980s and 1990s, there is little
evidence that it has been effective in reducing the level of overcrowding. Other
states, whether as a result of federal court oversight or exorbitant correctional
budgets, have chosen to implement innovative strategies to reduce the prison
population while balancing the need to ensure public safety.
One means of achieving this end is reducing prison time on account of good
behavior and successful participation in rehabilitative activities, such as vocational,
educational, and substance abuse treatment programs.
Arkansas – Continued Use of the Emergency Powers Act of 2003 to Relieve
Crowding

Since the passage of Act 1721 in 2003, the Emergency Powers Act has been invoked
every 90 days to reduce the levels of overpopulation within state facilities when the
population exceeds capacity by 500 people. The act permits the early release of
incarcerated class I and II non-violent offenders who have served no less than 6
months of their sentence. For example, in November 2007, the Board of
Corrections voted to permit 698 persons in prison to apply for parole release to
relieve overcrowding in the state prisons. At that time, the prisons were over 700
beds above capacity and more than 800 persons were in county jails awaiting
transport to a state facility.

14

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

California – Expanded Early Release Program in Local Jails

California granted expanded authority to local jail administrators to release certain
persons convicted of a misdemeanor to the community. SB 959 allows for the early
release of individuals from jail to the community by requiring persons to serve the
balance of their sentence under home detention with electronic monitoring. Prior
policy permitted an individual in jail to opt for the home detention alternative as a
means of alleviating overcrowding. Some officials argued, however, that local jails
have become so overcrowded that many people waived the home detention option in
order to wait for an anticipated outright early release to no supervision. Proponents
argued that the bill would permit greater supervision of individuals in the
community while also addressing chronic overcrowding in many facilities.
Nevada – Expanded “Good Time” Eligibility, Implemented Intermediate Sanctions
for Supervision Violations, Reclassified Jail Capacity Requirements

Nevada’s wide-ranging AB510 extends the maximum number of days a sentence may
be reduced for “good time” on the condition that a certain percentage of the sentence
has been served. In Nevada, an individual can now earn an increased number of days
to be subtracted from his or her sentence for good behavior, participating in
substance abuse treatment, and/or completing vocational education and training.
The bill also expands eligibility for reentry programming.
Nevada has also modified a number of conditions of community supervision.
Persons on probation can have their total sentence reduced by 20 days for every
month of good behavior under supervision. For both persons on probation and
parole, intermediate alternatives to revocation to custody have been created. In many
cases, a violation of a condition of supervision may result in assignment to a
residential or community-based center for an abbreviated period. Upon passage,
some state officials expressed concern about the ability of probation and parole
agencies to handle the anticipated increase in caseload. By September, there were
calls for a special legislative session to address concerns about a looming backlog in
the processing of parole applications when the law goes into effect on October 1,

15

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

2007, and by November there were additional calls for expanded appropriations to
handle the increased demand for parole applications.
Nevada also passed SB 30, which requires judges and local jail administrators to
consider a facility’s “operational capacity” rather than available bed space as a factor
determining early release of certain individuals from custody to alleviate
overcrowding. The new standard of “operational capacity” is defined as the “number
of prisoners that may be safely housed in a jail.”
Wisconsin – Expanded Substance Abuse Treatment Options to Reduce Sentence
Length

Wisconsin’s SB 40 expands substance abuse programs to all state correctional
facilities for currently incarcerated individuals who might qualify for early release
upon completion of such programs.

16

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

PAROLE AND REENTRY INITIATIVES

On average, half of all persons released from prison return to custody within three
years. These high rates of recidivism can be attributed to a number of causal
factors. Well-documented failures in reentry planning and parole certainly
contribute to the problem. These difficulties in the provision of reentry and parole
services resulted in legislation establishing programs and other rehabilitative
options for the incarcerated and previously incarcerated community. Some
highlights included:
California – Implemented “Earned Discharge” Program for Certain Persons on
Parole, Expanded Reentry Assistance

California returned 68,000 persons to prison in 2006 for violations of their terms of
release after having served an average of only four months on parole. This rate
translated to approximately two-thirds of persons on parole having their supervision
revoked for either a technical violation or the commission of a new offense. The
widespread failure of the California parole system to effectively manage its expanding
population has been a significant contributor to the state’s rapidly expanding prison
population. In response, the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation implemented an “earned discharge” program for persons currently on
parole for low-level, non-violent offenses who have been deemed to pose little risk of
reoffending. Persons on parole who have committed serious or violent offenses,
including sex offenses, are ineligible to participate. Under the new scheme, eligible
individuals who meet screening criteria can earn discharge from parole after serving
six months. Research indicates that the highest risk of reoffending occurs within the
initial six months of release, so the new approach permits the Department to
concentrate resources on low-risk individuals during this period and then redeploy
parole officers to address the needs of the higher-risk population for a longer period
of time. The program is being introduced in Orange County and pending initial
evaluation, is expected to be implemented statewide within 90 days of the Orange
County results.

17

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

The vast majority of persons being released from prison return to the community
with very little available resources to assist in their transition. SB 718 establishes a
pilot program in eight California counties, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, and
San Diego, which authorizes the county sheriff to debit funds from the Inmate
Welfare Fund to assist persons returning to the community. The Inmate Welfare
Fund is financed by sales from the jail commissary and proceeds from telephone calls
made from the jail facilities. A county sheriff is permitted to draw money from this
fund for the purpose of assisting with “essential clothing and transportation
expenses” as well as costs related to “work placement, counseling, obtaining proper
identification, education, and housing.”
Hawaii – Expanded Reentry, Rehabilitation Programs

SB 1174 promotes the development of special programs for incarcerated parents.
After the success of the Strengthening Keiki of Incarcerated Parents Program (SKIP),
the bill provides funding to facilities in order to develop and maintain programs
encouraging family stability. SKIP offers parenting classes that are “aimed to increase
an incarcerated parent's ability to provide a safe and nurturing environment for
young children.”
Vetoed by the governor but overridden by the legislature, the passage of SB 932 was
fueled by strong support for re-structuring the prison as a rehabilitative center. SB
932 includes provisions to place educational, vocational, and mental and physical
health care programs within the facilities and in communities for persons returning
from prison. It also attempts to influence the placement of inmates, especially ones
with children, to allow better access to family members and outside support.
Additionally, the bill mandates that inmates transferred out of state be brought back
to Hawaii for at least their final year of incarceration. It also establishes an
interagency committee to oversee these reforms and conduct research citing
improvements and recommended actions to further the goal of successful reentry
into the community. The bill offers the development of reentry courts to assist
previously incarcerated persons with access to treatment options.

18

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

Louisiana – Expanded Substance Abuse Treatment in Prisons

HB 645 creates the Prison Substance Abuse and Rehabilitation Pilot Program
requiring that every eligible person serving a sentence for a drug offense receive
substance abuse treatment. The bill calls for the evaluation of the program’s success,
and the scope of the program is contingent upon available funding and personnel.

19

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

JUVENILES

The treatment of juveniles, especially those nearing adulthood, is a contentious
issue in many states. The decision to prosecute children as adults has lasting
ramifications on their experience within the criminal justice system and their
prospects for rehabilitation. There were key developments in Connecticut and
Rhode Island regarding the statutory age of adulthood for the purposes of a criminal
court, while Colorado expanded opportunities to reconsider sentences for juveniles
convicted in adult court.
Connecticut – Changed Statutory Threshold for Adult Status

A provision in SB 1500, the Connecticut state budget, changed the definition of a
“child” for the purposes of criminal court classification to someone less than 18 years
of age. With this new provision, 16 and 17-year olds who had been treated as adults,
will be processed in juvenile court. Serious felonies committed by juveniles will still
be automatically transferred into adult court and prosecutors retain the right to
request a juvenile court judge to transfer a case into adult criminal court for other
offenses.
Colorado – Established Juvenile Clemency Board

In August 2007, Colorado Governor Bill Ritter signed Executive Order B-009-07
establishing a juvenile clemency board. The Juvenile Clemency Advisory Board is
charged with reviewing clemency and commutation requests from juveniles who have
been convicted in adult criminal court. The board can make recommendations to
the governor, who retains the ultimate decision making authority. The board is
charged with considering the institutional record of individuals while incarcerated,
including their record of rehabilitation. Moreover, the board is granted the authority
to recommend commutation to “address sentencing disparities and correct inequities
within the Colorado criminal justice system.”

20

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

Rhode Island – Changed Statutory Threshold for Adult Status (Ultimately Repealed)

While the Connecticut legislature was narrowing the reach of the state’s adult
criminal court to individuals older than 18, its neighbor to the east, Rhode Island,
was lowering the age limit for persons to be classified as an adult. Rhode Island’s
2008 budget included language to treat 17-year olds as adults within the criminal
justice system. The impetus for changing the age threshold was economic, as
legislators hoped to transfer eligible individuals out of the expensive juvenile justice
system into less costly adult facilities. Because the average annual cost of
incarceration in Rhode Island adult facilities is less than half of juvenile institutions,
it had been estimated that diverting 17-year old residents to the adult system could
save the system $3.6 million.
However, it quickly became apparent that the anticipated cost savings were illusory.
Because of their age, the Rhode Island Department of Corrections made an
administrative decision to house the 46 17-year olds convicted under the new law in
maximum security facilities for their protection. The average annual cost of
maximum security incarceration is estimated to be $104,000, more than the average
for the state’s juvenile system. The law came under heightened criticism in the
months following its enactment in July 2007. By October, support had largely
eroded for the legislation and in a one-day special session, the Rhode Island
legislature repealed the measure. However, legislators did not make the repeal
retroactive. Thus, the estimated 500 17-year olds charged between July 1, 2007 and
November 8, 2007 will face far more punitive sentences in the adult system if the
legislature does not act.

21

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

California’s state juvenile justice system has incurred intense criticism due to its
poor conditions, so much so that some counties have taken measures to keep
convicted juveniles from entering the system at all.
California – Restructured Juvenile Justice System

Passed with bipartisan support, California’s SB 81 is touted as a landmark reform to
the state’s juvenile justice system and is expected to reduce the population in state
juvenile detention centers by half in the next three years. The legislation calls for
juveniles charged with all but the most serious felonies to be adjudicated and
supervised in their county of residence rather than in a state facility. The counties
are better situated to provide community-based and blended supervision, whereas the
state Department of Juvenile Justice has been under a consent decree since 2004 due
to conditions in the state system. In order to address the juveniles that are diverted
from state facilities, the bill funds the construction of county-based rehabilitative
programs through a block grant. Also, the bill awards money for an average spending
of $130,000 per youth, annually. Additionally, the bill requires that relapse
prevention programs for juveniles convicted of sexual offenses include accompanying
analysis of their effectiveness.

22

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

SEXUAL OFFENSE LEGISLATION

One area of sex offender policy that has been reconsidered of late addresses certain
consensual sexual relations between young persons. Titled “Romeo and Juliet
Laws,” these provisions generally change sex offender registration requirements for
those who have no prior record and whose offense consists of consensual sexual
activity with a 13 to 17-year old who is close in age. In 2007, laws of this kind were
passed in Connecticut, Florida, and Indiana.
Connecticut – Modified Age Limits for Consensual Sex Between Teenagers

SB 1458 increased the minimum age difference for consensual sex between teenagers
from two to three years for persons 13 years of age and older.
Florida – Modified Age Limits for Consensual Sex Between Teenagers

In order to comply with the requirements of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act, Florida passed SB 1604 to expand and strengthen its registration
requirements for persons convicted of a sex offense. While it expands registration
requirements for persons convicted of a sex offense upon their return to the
community, the bill also sets guidelines to allow certain eligible individuals to apply
for the removal of the registration requirement. Persons not more than four years
older than a victim who was between 14 and 17 at the time of the offense will not be
required to register.
Indiana – Modified Age Limits for Consensual Sex Between Teenagers

In Indiana, persons who engaged in consensual relations with someone over the age
of 12 with whom they have a dating or ongoing relationship, and there was not more
than four years age difference between the partners, are not required to register (HB
1386).

23

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

Punitive sex offender legislation usually garners wide support and quick passage
within state legislatures, often in response to high profile crimes.
National – States Modify Sex Offender Laws

Of recent note, 39 states passed some form of “Jessica’s Law” after Jessica Lunsford’s
rape and murder in Florida by an individual with a prior history of sex offenses. The
law imposes mandatory minimum sentences for various sexual assault charges in
addition to other related actions. A second area of legislative activity regarding sex
offenses addressed new federal registration requirements mandated by the Adam
Walsh Child Protection Act of 2006. The bill established federal reporting
requirements for various categories of sex offenders and created a national sex
offender registry. States must comply with these requirements in order to remain
eligible for certain federal funds and many legislatures amended their statutes this
session to bring their policies into accordance with federal law.

24

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

The collection of 2007 criminal justice policy reforms highlighted in this report
reflects a continuing pattern of legislators and practitioners coming to terms with
more than thirty years of uninterrupted growth in the prison population. The
increased reliance on oversight committees and task forces to study the challenging
issues facing criminal justice agencies and to recommend strategies for reform is an
encouraging development. A common theme raised across these states was the need
to rely upon evidence-based practices to govern policy directions. Whether it be
expanding eligibility for parole, working to reduce revocations from community
supervision, or passing wholesale sentencing reform, in order for policymakers to
remain good stewards of the public trust, sound research should guide the decision
making process.
Current trends suggest that the state correctional population will continue to expand
in 2008, meaning that legislators and practitioners will still be facing many of the
same challenges of recent years. With each passing year presenting higher numbers
of persons in custody and under supervision, the need for expansive reform is more
pressing in order to achieve a sustainable reduction in the prison population. It is
possible that the final reports emerging from the oversight committees and task
forces discussed in this report will offer new strategies for reform in the coming years,
much like the experience of Washington’s “Joint Task Force on Offenders Programs,
Sentencing, and Supervision.” In the meantime, there are other important steps that
state policymakers should strongly consider in 2008. These include:

25

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

Repeal Mandatory Minimum Sentencing Provisions

The proposed reforms in Delaware, Maryland, and Rhode Island are encouraging
and illustrate that legislators are becoming increasingly aware of the need to enact
fundamental reform to mandatory minimum sentences. Mandatory minimums have
not been shown to reduce criminal offending, while the impact of the
disproportionately severe sentences, particularly among African Americans, has been
well documented. There is no single act that a legislature can do to return balance
and fairness to sentencing than to repeal mandatory minimum provisions and return
discretion to judges.
Implement Policies to Reduce Parole Revocatons

There are nearly 800,000 persons on parole in the United States, about one-third of
whom are returned to prison or jail each year. The proportion of prison admissions
resulting from parole revocations has doubled since the 1980s, now comprising onethird of admissions, many for technical violations of parole. States have wisely begun
to investigate strategies to stem the number of parole revocations to custody, often by
investing in intermediate sanctions that provide parole officers with options to keep
individuals in the community. Legislators should continue to support alternatives to
revocation for technical violations of parole and implement strategies that allow
people to remain in their community. In addition, limiting parole length for lowrisk individuals and redeploying resources to supervise the higher risk population will
permit parole officers to more effectively monitor individuals and provide
appropriate services. This allows for earlier identification and intervention regarding
problems that might otherwise result in revocation to custody.

26

THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2007 | DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

Reentry Investment and Oversight

Addressing the problem of parole revocations requires not only changing the
approaches and tools available to parole officers, but also requires expanding reentry
services for persons before they are released from custody. Since the early 1990s, the
proportion of persons participating in prison programming (drug treatment,
vocational training, educational preparation) has declined, while the number of
persons returning to the community has increased sharply. The tragic reality of the
American prison system is that more people are being incarcerated but receiving
fewer services to address the underlying cause of their criminal activity. Thus, many
persons are simply returned to the community with little outside support. Legislators
must identify proven successful strategies for reentry that prepare individuals before
release and seamlessly link to outside support upon release. A substantial amount of
research has been conducted over the last decade that documents best practices in
reentry planning. Addressing reentry planning by assisting with housing and
employment, for example, can have a substantial impact on recidivism and public
safety.
Expand Options to Reduce Time Served in Prison

In light of many states struggling to address prison populations that exceed capacity,
there has been a reconsideration of parole as an instrument of population
management. In recent years a number of states have expanded the types of offenses
eligible to earn “good time” and the amount of sentence reduction individuals can
earn. This is a promising strategy that assists prison administrators in easing
overcrowding while also rewarding incarcerated persons who demonstrate
commitment to personal change. Legislators would be wise to investigate options
that offer increased opportunity to earn a reduction in sentence.

FURTHER READING

Changing Direction? State Sentencing Reforms 2004-2006
http://www.sentencingproject.org/PublicationDetails.aspx?PublicationID=579
State Sentencing and Corrections Policy in an Era of Fiscal Restraint
http://www.sentencingproject.org/PublicationDetails.aspx?PublicationID=328
Incarceration and Crime: A Complex Relationship
http://www.sentencingproject.org/PublicationDetails.aspx?PublicationID=513