Justice Reinvestment in Arkansas 3rd Presentation to the Legislative Criminal Justice Oversight Task Force March 11, 2016 Andy Barbee, Research Manager Jessica Gonzales, Senior Research Associate Ben Shelor, Policy Analyst Dan Altman, Program Associate
The Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center and the Jus6ce Reinvestment process • Na6onal nonprofit, nonpar6san membership associa6on of state government officials • Engages members of all three branches of state government • Jus6ce Center provides prac6cal, nonpar6san advice informed by the best available evidence
A data-driven approach to reduce correc1ons spending and reinvest savings in strategies that can decrease recidivism and increase public safety The Jus6ce Reinvestment Ini6a6ve is supported by funding from the U.S. Department of Jus6ce’s Bureau of Jus+ce Assistance (BJA) and The Pew Charitable Trusts
Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
2
Takeaways from previous presenta6on
Arkansas established the Sentencing Standards and the Sentencing Commission in 1993 with passage of Act 532.
Among a variety of sentencing op6ons available to the courts, the key provisions of Act 532 were to achieve propor6onality in sentencing and reserve prison for the most serious oenses and repeat oenders.
Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
3
Takeaways from previous presenta6on Arkansas’s sentencing grid doesn’t offer sentence length ranges for prison sentences and has a high share of cells that allow for all sentencing op6ons. In policy, the grid does less than other states to guide the type of sentence used. In prac6ce, prison is used oTen for less serious offenses or offenders. Despite the intent of the guidelines to reserve prison space for the most dangerous offenders, more than 1,000 people from non-prison cells were sent to ADC in 2014. Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
4
Ques6ons for the Task Force
1. 2. 3.
What share of the grid should allow for all sentencing op+ons? Should the guidelines have prison sentence ranges instead of a speciďŹ c term to allow for considera6on of mi6ga6ng or aggrava6ng factors? Should there be a process for reviewing sentences in rela6on to the guidelinerecommended term? Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
5
Kansas, North Carolina, and Alabama illustrate approaches to opera6onalizing ques6ons posed to Task Force Kansas (1993) and North Carolina (1994) each adopted their sentencing guidelines framework at a similar 6me to Arkansas (1993). Alabama did not adopt sentencing guidelines un6l 2006. ü Above states demonstrate different approaches to pu_ng “teeth” into guidelines.
ü Surrounding region ü Recent history of addressing criminal jus6ce challenges Source: Arkansas Sentencing Commission; Kansas Sentencing Commission; North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission; and Alabama Sentencing Commission
Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
6
Arkansas has a high share of its grid that doesn’t actually guide sentencing Percent of total grid cells that allow for “all op6ons” in sentencing:
Arkansas: 40%
North Carolina: 28%
Kansas: 8%
Non Drug
Drug
These “all op6ons” cells do not suggest any upper or lower boundary on the type of sentence imposed.
Source: Arkansas Sentencing Commission; Kansas Sentencing Commission; and North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission
Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
7
Arkansas’s sentencing grid prescribes a single length for prison terms instead of a range Less history
More history Criminal History Score
Offense Seriousness
More serious offenses
Less serious offenses
0
1
2
3
4
5+
10
360
384
432
528
660
780
9
240
312
396
480
600
720
8
120
168
264
360
432
600
7
42
54
84
120
160
300
6
24
42
66
108
156
240
5
36
54
72
120
180
4
18
30
54
72
96
18
30
42
60
2
18
24
42
1
9
24
30
3
Sentencing grids typically offer a sentence length range, taking into account that individual cases may have either mi6ga6ng or aggrava6ng circumstances.
Source: Arkansas Sentencing Commission
Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
8
Majority of states with guidelines use prison term ranges rather than singular recommended sentence length Kansas
North Carolina
SENTENCING RANGE – NONDRUG OFFENSES B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
2 Person Felonies
1 Person & 1 Nonperson Felonies
1 Person Felony
3+ Nonperson Felonies
2 Nonperson Felonies
1 Nonperson Felony
2+ Misdemeanor
1 Misdemeanor No Record
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
653
493
247
172
136
46
34
23
17
13
620
467
233
162
130
43
32
21
16
12
618 592 460 442 228 221 162 154 128 122 41 40 31 30 20 19 15 15 12 11
586
438
216
154
120
285 554 216 416 107 206 75 144 60 114
39
29
19
14
11
38 37 29 27 19 18 13 13 11 10
272
205
102
71
57
36
27
18
12
10
267 258 200 194 100 96 69 68 55 53 36 34 26 25 17 17 13 11 10 9
253
190
94
66
52
34
24
16
12
9
246 240 184 181 92 89 64 62 51 50 32 32 23 22 15 15 11 11 9 8
234
174
88
60
49
30
21
14
226 221 168 165 83 82 59 57 47 46 29 28 19 19 13 13
10
8
10 9 8 7
214
160
79
56
44
27
18
12
9
7
203 203 154 152 77
195
146
72
74 52
50
52 43
41
41 26
24
25 17
16
17 11
10
11 9
8
8 7
6
6
186 184 138 138 71 68 48 47 38 38 21 22 14 15 11 9 8 7 7 5
176
131
66
45
36
20
13
10
7
6
165 166 123 123 61 61 43 42 34 34 19 19 13 12 9 9 7 6 7 5
155
117
59
41
32
18
12
8
6
6
FELONY PUNISHMENT CHART
A
147
B1
55
38
B2
31
C 17
11
7
5
12 months (up to) for felonies classified in Severity Levels 9-10
Presumptive Probation
Postrelease Supervision Terms are:
Postrelease for felonies committed before 4/20/95 are:
36 months for felonies classified in Severity Levels 1-4
24 months for felonies classified in Severity Levels 1-6
24 months for felonies classified in Severity Levels 5-6
12 months for felonies classified in Severity Level 7-10
5
12 months for felonies classified in Severity Levels 7-10
A
A
A
240 - 300
276 - 345
317 -397
365 - 456
Life Without Parole
Life Without Parole
221 - 276
254 - 317
292 - 365
336 - 420
386 - 483
144 - 192
KSG Desk Reference Manual 2014 Appendix E
I
A
A
166 - 221
190 - 254
219 - 292
252 - 336
290 - 386
A
A
A
A
A
157 - 196
180 - 225
207 - 258
238 - 297
273 - 342
314 - 393
125 - 157
144 - 180
165 - 207
190 - 238
219 - 273
251 - 314
94 - 125
108 - 144
124 - 165
143 - 190
164 - 219
189 - 251
A
A
A
A
73 – 92
83 - 104
96 - 120
110 - 138
127 - 159
146 - 182
67 - 83
77 - 96
88 - 110
101 - 127
117 - 146
44 - 58
50 - 67
58 - 77
66 - 88
76 - 101
87 - 117
A
A
A
A
A
A
64 - 80
73 - 92
84 - 105
97 - 121
111 - 139
128 - 160
51 - 64
59 - 73
67 - 84
78 - 97
89 - 111
103 - 128
38 - 51
44 - 59
51 - 67
58 - 78
67 - 89
77 - 103
I/A
A
A
A
A
A
25 - 31
29 - 36
33 - 41
38 - 48
44 - 55
50 - 63
20 - 25
23 - 29
26 - 33
30 - 38
35 - 44
40 - 50
17 - 23
I/A
20 - 26
I/A
23 - 30
26 - 35
A
30 - 40
A
A
16 - 20
19 - 23
21 - 27
25 - 31
28 - 36
33 - 41
13 - 16
15 - 19
17 - 21
20 - 25
23 - 28
26 - 33
10 - 13
11 - 15
13 - 17
15 - 20
17 - 23
20 - 26
I/A
I/A
I/A
A
A
13 - 16
14 - 18
17 - 21
19 - 24
22 - 27
25 - 31
10 - 13
12 - 14
13 - 17
15 - 19
17 - 22
20 - 25
8 - 10
9 - 12
10 - 13
11 - 15
13 - 17
15 - 20
C/I/A
I/A
I/A
I/A
I/A
6-8
8 - 10
10 - 12
11 - 14
15 - 19
20 - 25
5-6
6-8
8 - 10
9 - 11
12 - 15
16 - 20
4-5
4-6
6-8
7-9
9 - 12
DISPOSITION Aggravated Range PRESUMPTIVE RANGE Mitigated Range
A
58 - 73
I/A
H
VI
192 - 240
I/A
G
PRIOR RECORD LEVEL III IV V
6-9 Pts 10-13 Pts 14-17 Pts 18+ Pts Death or Life Without Parole Defendant Under 18 at Time of Offense: Life With or Without Parole
15 - 20
F
Border Box Presumptive Imprisonment
2-5 Pts
I/A
E
LEGEND
18 months (up to) for felonies classified in Severity Level 8
II
0-1 Pt
A
D
Probation Terms are: 36 months recommended for felonies classified in Severity Levels 1-5 24 months recommended for felonies classified in Severity Levels 6-7
I
A 109
OFFENSE CLASS
Severity Level ↓
*** Effective for Offenses Committed on or after 10/1/13 ***
A 3+ Person Felonies
Category
Alabama
A
12 - 16
C
C/I
I
I/A
I/A
I/A
6-8
6-8
6-8
8 - 10
9 - 11
10 - 12
4-6
4-6
5-6
6-8
7-9
8 - 10
3-4
3-4
4-5
4-6
5-7
6-8
A – Active Punishment I – Intermediate Punishment C – Community Punishment Numbers shown are in months and represent the range of minimum sentences Revised: 09-09-13
69
66
62
A 73-92 59-73 44-59
Score Low Mid High 181 45 87 130
Use of prison sentence ranges allows for considera6on of aggrava6ng or mi6ga6ng factors in individual sentences while maintaining compliance with the guidelines. Source: Kansas Sentencing Commission; North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission; and Alabama Sentencing Commission
Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
9
States employ various means of limi6ng departures from the guidelines
Is there a framework for appellate review in rela6on to the guidelines?
What sort of mechanisms create framework for review?
Arkansas
Kansas
North Carolina
Alabama
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Not Applicable
Guidelines provide a list of non-exclusive, case-specific factors to determine if departure reasoning is substan1al and compelling.
Statute provides available presumpGve, aggravated, and miGgated ranges based on circumstances. Effec1vely no departures allowed outside those ranges.
Departures are allowed, but the judge must make a finding of miGgaGon or aggravaGon and state this reason on the record if deparGng from the presumpGve sentence.
Source: Sentencing Guidelines Resource Center, Robina InsGtute of Criminal Law and Criminal JusGce, University of Minnesota: hNp://sentencing.umn.edu/
Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
10
Even in states with guidelines, sentencing policy and prac6ce differs significantly
Issue
Arkansas
Kansas
North Carolina
Prison sentencing ranges?
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Percentage of “all-op+ons” cells
40%
8%
28%
N/A
Enforceable limits on departures?
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Alabama
Without a mechanism for reviewing sentences in rela6on to the sentencing standards grid, it will be very difficult to incorporate “teeth” into Arkansas’s guidelines. Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
11
Ques6ons for the Task Force
1. 2. 3.
What share of the grid should allow for all sentencing op+ons? Should the guidelines have prison sentence ranges instead of a speciďŹ c term to allow for considera6on of mi6ga6ng or aggrava6ng factors? Should there be a process for reviewing sentences in rela6on to the guidelinerecommended term? Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
12
Moving forward Ø Analysis of prison, proba+on, and parole data –
Impact of supervision failures on prison pressures
–
Ability of supervision system to maximize public safety outcomes through policies and prac6ces that effec6vely promote recidivism reduc6on
Ø Analysis of local jail pressures –
How does jail backlog impact ability to effec6vely sanc6on supervision violators in a swiT and sure manner
Ø Analysis of demographic trends –
Gender, race, age
Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
13
Proposed project 6meline Task Force Mee6ng 3 Task Force Mee6ng 1
Nov
Dec
Task Force Mee6ng 2
Jan
Feb
Task Force Mee6ng 4
Mar
Apr
May
Task Force Mee6ng 6
Task Force Mee6ng 5
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Data Analysis Ini6al Analysis
Detailed Data Analysis
Impact Analysis
Policymaker and Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholder Engagement and Policymaker BrieďŹ ngs
Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
Policy Op6on Development
14
Thank You
Ben Shelor, Policy Analyst bshelor@csg.org
CSGJUSTICECENTER.ORG/SUBSCRIBE This material was prepared for the State of Arkansas. The presenta6on was developed by members of the Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center staff. Because presenta6ons are not subject to the same rigorous review process as other printed materials, the statements made reflect the views of the authors, and should not be considered the official posi6on of the Jus6ce Center, the members of the Council of State Governments, or the funding agency suppor6ng the work.
Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
15