Brandeis's Laboratories of Sentencing and Corrections: Making Better Use of Knowledge from the States

Abstract

State criminal justice systems have great opportunities to learn from the successes and failures of other states. Justice Brandeis famously called the states “laboratories” for innovation in law and policy. Yet researchers, policy makers, and law makers have done too little to exploit this unique American resource. This article highlights a number of issues in the field of sentencing and corrections that jump forward from a combined reading of all the articles published in this volume. The subjects are: (1) a suggestion for improvement on the current model for state-based research in criminal justice; (2) the pressing need to attend to policy issues at the “back end” of the sentencing chronology; (3) the growing use of risk assessment technology at various stages of the sentencing process; (4) the need to embrace less-than-perfect solutions; and (5) the need to develop new policy approaches to combat racial and ethnic disparities among those sentenced.

Judicial Rotation as Centripetal Force: Sentencing in the Court Communities of South Carolina*

“…The findings offer several contributions to the sentencing field: They advance the court communities literature by exploring system features that pull courts toward greater uniformity rather than diffusion, and they demonstrate the importance of a structural characteristic, judicial rotation, which has defining sentencing policy implications. Scholars have called both for a renewal of studies aimed at engaging in qualitative analysis to supplement quantitative findings and for studies aimed at a broader variety of jurisdictional contexts (e.g., Baumer, ; Engen, ; Reitz, , ). Through the current study, I answer both of these calls and provide a clearer understanding of sentencing practices in this nonguidelines state.…”

Charting the Evolution of Structure and Determinacy in State Sentencing and Corrections Policies 1970–2010

“…sentencing guidelines (see, e.g., Stemen & Rengifo, 2011), while others use structured sentencing to refer to several policies, including sentencing guidelines, mandatory sentencing laws, and the abolition of discretionary parole release (see, e.g., Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1998;Spohn, 2009). In contrast, some authors use the term determinate sentencing to refer to sentencing guidelines and mandatory sentencing laws (see, e.g., Kautt & Delone, 2006;Schlesinger, 2011), while others have reserved the term determinate sentencing to refer exclusively to the abolition of discretionary parole release (see, e.g., Reitz, 2010;Stemen & Rengifo, 2011). Pfaff (2005), on the other hand, defines determinate sentencing as the creation of "specific sentences or ranges of sentences that judges are required to impose" and treats it as distinct from the abolition of discretionary parole release and sentencing guidelines.…”

“…Thus, according to the literature, sentencing guidelines and mandatory sentencing laws may be determinate sentencing policies (see, e.g., Kautt & Delone, 2006;Schlesinger, 2011) or structured sentencing policies (see, e.g., Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1998, p. 2;Spohn, 2000, p. 229;Stemen & Rengifo, 2011) or both (Driessen & Durham, 2002). The abolition of discretionary parole release may be defined as determinate sentencing (Reitz, 2010;Stemen & Rengifo, 2011) or as a type of structured sentencing (Spohn, 2009), or as something separate from determinate sentencing and structured sentencing (Pfaff, 2005).…”

“…The presumptive sentence for a Class A felony shall be the midpoint of the range if there are no enhancement or mitigating factors." * Table 3 Effective Dates (and Repeal Date if Applicable) of Determinate Systems authority (e.g., a parole board) that has the power to release an offender from prison before the expiration of his or her sentence (see, e.g., Reitz, 2010;. States with indeterminate sentencing require judges to impose a prison term in several different ways-by imposing the maximum prison term an offender could serve, the minimum prison term an offender must serve, or both the maximum and minimum prison terms.…”

“…The "indeterminacy" in the system refers to the relative disconnect between the length of sentence imposed by the judge and the actual time an offender serves in prison prior to release by the parole board. Although the term "determinate sentencing" has been applied to several types of systems, the defining feature of all determinate sentencing systems is the absence of discretionary release from prison (see Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1996Assistance, , 1998Reitz & Reitz, 1993;Reitz, 2010;. Thus, a more appropriate term may be "determinate release" or a "determinate system."…”