CJ380 Probation and Parole

Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants law

Ashworth College

Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants law

1. Definition

Truth-in-sentencing refers to several practices of sentencing with the objective of reducing the uncertainty with respect to the length of terms served by offenders in prison. The Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants law was passed by the senate in 1994 basically to minimize the chances of early release from incarceration (Ditton&Doris, 1999). This law provides a certain portion of sentence that ought to be served by prisoners before they can be considered for release. The Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants law restricts previous polices which were significantly reducing the portion of a jail sentence through such provisions as parole board release, goodtime, and earned-time. The law was created by the 1994 amendment of the Crime Act, authorizing the Department of Justice (DOJ) to Truth-in-Sentence (TIS) incentive grants to states that are eligible for the expansion of construction of jails and other facilities in order to safely confine more offenders of Part 1 violent crimes. The DOJ’s Corrections Program Office play the role of administering the Federal TIS grants which, generally, ought to be given to states that have adopted laws calling for prisoners to serve a minimum of 85% of the term imposed on them (Ditton&Doris, 1999). The DOJ has some guidelines for grant application, according to which, states are only supposed to include the time an individual serving a jail term is committed to the custody and care of a particular correctional agency. According to the Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants law, a statutory or administrative time credits ought not to be considered in the course of calculating the time to be served. Also, not to be taken into consideration is any parole and probation time. It is, however, worth noting that the law provides for any time served in reintegration and community placements, and jail can be considered while calculating the time to be served.

2. What was the Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants law designed to accomplish

One of the primary reasons for designing the Truth-in-Sentencing Grants law was to allocate funds for expanding prison space for violent offenders, as long as the states have adopted TIS laws. This has the implication that states that needed these funds would first have to enact truth-in-sentencing laws. The enactment of the laws was aimed at increasing the portion of terms served by violent offenders from 36% percent in the 1980s to at least 85 percent (Ditton&Doris, 1999). The TIS law would seek the consistency and clarity of terms served by violent offenders and would also ensure that these criminals received harsher treatments as demanded by their families and victims of the crime they committed. The enactment of the TIS law was also aimed at curbing the increasing rate of crime in the United States. Between 1984 and 1992, the rate of crime in America increased by 40% and, indeed, occupied a top slot in the national agenda (GAO, 1998). The increasing rate of crime in the US was attributed to low terms served by criminals thus obliging Attorney General William Saxbe to call for the adoption of TIS by states. It was generally perceived that if the minimum term to be served by criminals was extended, less people would engage in criminal offenses. The Attorney General’s sentiments received substantial support from the public encouraging the House to pass the pill that proposed the True-in-Sentencing Grant law (GAO, 1998). Ideally, the Act would increase the stable prison population and ensure that judges outline the expected length of all jail terms, which would remain constant. The TIS law was also enacted to influence the outcomes of terms served in corrective agencies; basically, harsher treatment and increased terms were thought to have the ability to achieve more positive outcomes of the punishment.

3. What other mandatory sentencing movements is truth-in-sentencing linked to?

The TIS is also linked to the mandatory minimum sentence and three strikes laws. Basically, these are laws which have a tendency of leading to the imposition of sentences perceived to be unjustly severe by practitioners, enhance widespread circumvention, and instill the poser to sentence on judges. The period between 1975 and 1996 saw a high incidence of enactment of the mandatory minimums in the country. Indeed, by the year 1983, these laws had been adopted by 49 stated for crimes with the exception of drunk driving and murder. The mandatory minimum sentences tend to relate with TIS in terms of harshness and are applicable to aggravated rape, murder, drug offenses, felonies committed by individuals who have previously been convicted for felony, and firearm-related felonies (Cary, 1993). The processing of cases under the mandatory minimum sentence and the three strikes laws have been found to be consistent with the processing under the TIS law. In these three sentencing movements, practitioners have identified disparities between cases with and those without circumvented laws. A number of state laws also have close link with the True-in-Sentencing law. For instance, the Rockefeller Drug Laws of New York call for lengthy minimum terms for individuals who have been convicted with various drug offenses (Cary, 1993). As the TIS law funded the expansion of prisons, the Rockefeller Drug Laws created and funded 31 new courts with the aim of handling cases that are related to drugs. Therefore, all the sentencing movements related to the TIS law focus on the creation of more space to hand justice to victims of different types of crime committed in the United States.

4. How has the Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grant changed the way states sentence offenders? Include a discussion of which states complied with the act.

The mid-1990s saw many states respond to the dissatisfaction with the system of criminal justice and rate of crime by adopting a number of harsh measures to curb crime. The adoption of the TIS law is considered the primary measure that was taken by several states in attempts to control the increasing rate of crime. The TIS law increased the population of offenders and the length of their stay in jails. The inmate population increased significantly between 1991 and 2000, following the adoption of the True-in-Sentencing law by most of the states (Chen, 2000). Basically, the increase in the number of inmates can be attributed to the funds allocated, by the law, for the expansion of prisons, hence more space for confining crime offenders. The enactment of the TIS law has influenced the behavior of judges; where by, they have reduced the length of the terms imposed on felons. Considering the provision that, criminals will serve 85% of their terms; judges have responded by reducing the jail terms in order to create allowance for the 85% requirement (Chen, 2000). In an example, the national Council of Crime and Delinquency reported that the number of inmates in Mississippi had significantly increased in the late 1990s, after the adoption of the TIS law. By the year 1997, at least 27 states had adopted the TIS law and were thus receiving grants for the expansion of jails to confine more criminals. Some of the earliest adopters of the law were Arizona, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina.

References

Cary, M. K. (1993). How states can fight violent crime: Two dozen steps to a safer America (State Backgrounder Series). Washington, DC: Heritage Foundation.

Chen, E. (2000). Impacts of three strikes and truth in sentencing on the volume and composition of correctional populations. Unpublished research report to the National Institute of Justice.

Ditton, M. &Doris, W. (1999). Truth in sentencing in state prisons. Special Report NCJ 170032. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

GAO. (1998). Truth In Sentencing; Availability of Federal Grants Influenced Laws in Some States. Report to the Congressional Requesters.