DOCSLIB.ORG

Time Served in State Prison, 2016 Danielle Kaeble, BJS Statistician

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Time Served in State Prison, 2016 Danielle Kaeble, BJS Statistician U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics November 2018, NCJ 252205 Bulletin Time Served in State Prison, 2016 Danielle Kaeble, BJS Statistician ost violent ofenders (57%) released from state prison in 2016 served less FIGURE 1 Median time served in state prison before initial than three years in prison before their release, by most serious ofense, 2016 Minitial release. About 1 in 25 violent ofenders (3.6%) served 20 years or more before their Most serious o˜ense initial release. Tese fndings are based on Murder prisoner records from the Bureau of Justice Violent o˜enses, Statistics’ National Corrections Reporting non-murder Program (NCRP), which collects records on Property o˜enses prison admissions and releases. Drug tra°cking Drug possession All statistics in this report are based on state prisoners’ frst release afer serving time for a Public order/other given ofense. Tey exclude persons who had All o˜enses been released afer serving time for an ofense, 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 returned to prison for violating community Number of years supervision, and then were released again. Note: Initial release does not refer to frst-time ofenders but to ofenders’ frst release from a given sentence (whether they are Te average time served by state prisoners frst-time ofenders or not), as opposed to a re-release after a subsequent parole violation. Statistics are based on 44 states, released in 2016, from their date of initial and data exclude state prisoners with sentences of one year admission to their date of initial release, or less; those with missing values for most serious ofense or calculated time served; those released by transfer, appeal, or was 2.6 years. Te median amount of time detainer; and those who escaped. Data include 2,755 deaths in served (the middle value in the range of time 2016. See table 1 for detail and description of ofenses. served, with 50% of ofenders serving more Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program 2016. and 50% serving less) was 1.3 years (fgure 1). , HIGHLIGHTS The average time served by state prisoners Ninety-six percent of violent ofenders released in released in 2016, from initial admission to initial 2016, including 70% of those sentenced for murder release, was 2.6 years, and the median time served or non-negligent manslaughter, served less than was 1.3 years. 20 years before initial release from state prison. Persons released from state prison in 2016 served About three-quarters of violent ofenders released an average of 46% of their maximum sentence from state prison in 2016 served at least one year length before their initial release. before initial release. State prisoners initially released in 2016 served Roughly 1 in 5 state prisoners released in 2016 an average of 62% of their sentence if they were after being sentenced for rape or sexual assault serving time for rape or sexual assault, and 38% if served 10 or more years before initial release. serving time for drug possession. On average, state prisoners serving time for Persons serving less than one year in state prison property, drug, or public-order ofenses served represented 40% of frst releases in 2016. less than two years before initial release. Persons sentenced for murder or non-negligent Most ofenders (59%) released from state prison in manslaughter served an average of 15 years in 2016 after serving time for drug possession served state prison before their initial release. less than one year before their initial release. By ofense type, the median time served was 13.4 years Eight percent of initial releases from state prison in for murder, 2.2 years for violent crimes excluding 2016 were persons sentenced to more than one year for murder, 17 months for drug trafcking, and 10 months possession of drugs. On average, these ofenders spent for drug possession. 15 months in state prison, and their median time served was 10 months. Tis report is based on NCRP data from 44 states. In 2016, these states were responsible for 97% of all TABLE 1 persons released from state prisons nationwide (map 1). Time served in state prison before frst release, by most Annually administered by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, serious ofense, 2016 the NCRP obtains individual-level records from state Time served in prisona departments of corrections on prisoners entering and Percent of Most serious ofense total releases Medianb Mean leaving prison custody or community supervision. All ofenses 100% 1.3 yrs. 2.6 yrs. Violent 28.7% 2.4 yrs. 4.7 yrs. Violent ofenders served 4.7 years in state prison Murderc 1.9 13.4 15.0 on average, compared to less than 2 years for Negligent manslaughter 0.7 4.0 5.2 other ofenders Rape/sexual assault 5.0 4.2 6.2 Robbery 7.4 3.2 4.7 State prisoners released in 2016 afer serving time for a Assaultd 11.0 1.4 2.5 violent ofense spent an average of 4.7 years in prison Other violente 2.6 1.6 3.1 before their initial release. Violent ofenders made up Property 27.4% 13 mos. 21 mos. 29% of all initial releases that year (table 1). Among Burglary 11.4 17 26 non-violent ofenses, persons released from state Larceny-theft 7.2 11 17 Motor vehicle theft 1.3 12 17 prison in 2016 afer serving time for weapons ofenses f (24 months) served fve months longer on average Fraud 4.0 11 17 Other propertyg 3.5 12 19 than those released for other public-order ofenses Drug 24.4% 14 mos. 22 mos. (19 months). Persons sentenced for drug trafcking Possession 7.6 10 15 spent an average of 26 months in state prison before Trafcking 9.3 17 26 initial release, which was fve months longer than the Other drugh 7.4 14 23 average time served for property ofenses (21 months). Public order 18.7% 13 mos. 20 mos. Weapons 5.5 16 24 i MAP 1 Other public order 13.3 12 19 Other/unspecifed 0.8% 13 mos. 27 mos. States included in analysis of time served, 2016 Number of releases 377,839 ~ ~ WA Note: Details may not sum to totals due to rounding. First release does MT NH ME not refer to frst-time ofenders but to ofenders’ frst release from a given MN sentence (whether they are frst-time ofenders or not), as opposed to a SD WI MA NY re-release after a subsequent parole violation. Statistics are based on 44 WY MI RI states and data exclude state prisoners with sentences of one year or IA PA CT , NE OH NJ less; those with missing values for most serious ofense or calculated time NV UT IL IN CA CO WV DE served; those released by transfer, appeal, or detainer; and those who KS MO KY VA MD NC escaped. Data include 2,755 deaths in 2016. Excluding deaths, the average AZ OK TN time served for murder or non-negligent manslaughter would be 11.2 years. AR SC MS AL GA ~Not applicable. TX LA aExcludes time served in jail. b FL The statistical median represents the value at which 50% of the values are larger and 50% are smaller in a sequence of numbers. HI cIncludes non-negligent manslaughter. dIncludes 72.2% aggravated assault, 21.4% simple assault, and 6.4% assault on a public safety ofcer. eIncludes kidnapping, blackmail, extortion, hit and run with injury, and Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting other unknown violent ofenses. Program 2016. , fIncludes forgery and embezzlement. gIncludes arson, receiving and trafcking of stolen property, destruction of property, trespassing, and other unknown property ofenses. hIncludes forging prescriptions, possession of drug paraphernalia, and other unspecifed ofenses. iIncludes DUIs/DWIs; court ofenses; commercialized vice, morals, and decency ofenses; liquor law violations; and other public-order ofenses. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program, 2016. TIME SERVED IN STATE PRISON, 2016 | NOVEMBER 2018 2 More than 7 in 10 violent ofenders released in 2016 Less than 7% of persons released in 2016 afer serving served less than fve years in state prison time for property, drug, or public-order ofenses served fve years or longer in state prison before their initial Persons serving less than one year in state prison release. Tree percent of those sentenced for drug represented 40% of frst releases in 2016 (table 2). possession served fve years or more. About four-ffhs Almost a ffh (18%) of persons served less than six (81%) of persons released in 2016 who served 10 years months. More than 7 in 10 of violent ofenders (72%) or longer before their initial release were in prison for a served less than fve years in state prison before their violent ofense (not shown in table). Ninety-nine percent initial release, and nearly 9 in 10 violent ofenders of ofenders served less than 20 years before initial (88%) served less than 10 years. About a quarter (24%) release, including 70% of those sentenced for murder or of ofenders released afer being sentenced for rape or non-negligent manslaughter. sexual assault served between 5 and 10 years before initial release; most (57%) served shorter terms than that. TABLE 2 Percent of prisoners who served a given length of time before frst release, by most serious ofense, 2016 20 years Most serious ofense <6 monthsa <1 yearb <2 years <3 years <5 years <10 years <20 years or longer All ofenses 18.1% 39.5% 64.5% 76.8% 87.4% 95.5% 98.8% 1.2% Violent 10.8% 24.3% 44.3% 56.7% 71.8% 87.7% 96.4% 3.6% Murderc 2.4 3.8 7.7 11.8 20.0 39.6 69.6 30.4 Negligent manslaughter 6.6 13.2 26.9 39.0 60.2 87.1 99.1 0.9 Rape/sexual assault 5.8 12.8 27.0 39.1 57.2 81.3 96.0 4.0 Robbery 6.9 15.7 33.7 48.0 68.0 89.4 98.2 1.8 Assault 16.0 37.1 63.4 75.8 88.0 96.5 99.4 0.6 Other violentd 16.9 34.9
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Suspended Sentence -- Banishment As Condition W
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 8 | Number 4 Article 19 6-1-1930 Criminal Law -- Suspended Sentence -- Banishment as Condition W. T. Covington Jr. Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation W. T. Covington Jr., Criminal Law -- Suspended Sentence -- Banishment as Condition, 8 N.C. L. Rev. 465 (1930). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol8/iss4/19 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES AND COMMENTS. Criminal Law-Suspended Sentence-Banishment as Condition The feme defendant, convicted in the Superior Court of violating the prohibition laws, was sentenced to two years imprisonment, capias to issue at the discretion of the solicitor, if at the end of sixty days the defendant was found within the state. The defendant left the state within the sixty days, but, four years after her conviction and two years after her return to the state, on a motion of the solicitor, while she awaited trial on another prohibition charge, the sentence was ordered under the previous judgment. Both the judgment' and the order 2 were affirmed on appeal. It is suggested in a Tennessee decisions that the suspended sen- tence having developed in England as an aid to substantial justice in lieu of criminal appeals, it is now properly employed only as an inci- dent of procedure.
    [Show full text]
  • Reckless Driving; Vehicular Manslaughter; Death of Two Or More) Penal Law § 125.14 (4) (Committed on Or After Nov
    AGGRAVATED VEHICULAR HOMICIDE (Reckless Driving; Vehicular Manslaughter; Death of Two or More) Penal Law § 125.14 (4) (Committed on or after Nov. 1, 2007) The (specify) count is Aggravated Vehicular Homicide. Under our law, a person is guilty of Aggravated Vehicular Homicide when he or she engages in Reckless Driving1 and commits the crime of Vehicular Manslaughter in the Second Degree2 and causes the death of more than one 3 person. The following terms used in that definition have a special meaning: A person ENGAGES IN RECKLESS DRIVING when that person drives or uses any motor vehicle,4 in a manner which unreasonably interferes with the free and proper use of a public highway, road, street, or avenue, or unreasonably endangers users of a public highway, road, street, or avenue.5 1 At this point, the statute continues: “as defined by section twelve hundred twelve of the vehicle and traffic law.” That definition is utilized in this charge in the definition of “reckless driving.” 2 At this point, the statute continues: “as defined in section 125.12 of this article.” 3 At this point, the statute states “other person.” For purposes of clarity, the word “other” modifying “person” has been omitted. 4 At this point, the statute continues: “motorcycle or any other vehicle propelled by any power other than a muscular power or any appliance or accessory thereof.” (Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1212). Such language has been omitted here due to the all encompassing term “motor vehicle.” The additional statutory language should, however, be inserted if that type of vehicle is at issue.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3-1 Homicide and Related Offenses
    CHAPTER 3-1 HOMICIDE AND RELATED OFFENSES 3-1:01 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE (AFTER DELIBERATION) 3-1:02 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE (FELONY MURDER) 3-1:03 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FELONY MURDER 3-1:04 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE (EXECUTION BASED UPON PERJURY) 3-1:05 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE (EXTREME INDIFFERENCE) 3-1:06 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE (DISTRIBUTION OF CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE ON SCHOOL GROUNDS) 3-1:07 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE (CHILD UNDER TWELVE) 3-1:08 MURDER IN THE SECOND DEGREE 3-1:09 INTERROGATORY (PROVOKED PASSION) 3-1:10 MANSLAUGHTER (RECKLESS) 3-1:11 MANSLAUGHTER (CAUSED OR AIDED SUICIDE) 3-1:12 CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE 3-1:13 VEHICULAR HOMICIDE 3-1:14 SPECIAL INSTRUCTION INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN FROM EVIDENCE OF BLOOD ALCOHOL LEVEL 3-1(15) DEFINITION The instructions in this chapter are designed to cover the offenses in §§ 18-3-101 to 107, C.R.S. 3-1:01 MURDER IN THE FIRST DEGREE (AFTER DELIBERATION) The elements of the crime of murder in the first degree are: 1. That the defendant, 2. in the State of Colorado, at or about the date and place charged, 3. after deliberation, and with intent a. to cause the death of a person other than himself, b. caused the death of __________________. 4. [without the affirmative defense in instruction number _____ .] After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree.
    [Show full text]
  • Crimes Act 2016
    REPUBLIC OF NAURU Crimes Act 2016 ______________________________ Act No. 18 of 2016 ______________________________ TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 – PRELIMINARY ....................................................................................................... 1 1 Short title .................................................................................................... 1 2 Commencement ......................................................................................... 1 3 Application ................................................................................................. 1 4 Codification ................................................................................................ 1 5 Standard geographical jurisdiction ............................................................. 2 6 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—ship or aircraft outside Nauru ......................... 2 7 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—transnational crime ......................................... 4 PART 2 – INTERPRETATION ................................................................................................ 6 8 Definitions .................................................................................................. 6 9 Definition of consent ................................................................................ 13 PART 3 – PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ................................................. 14 DIVISION 3.1 – PURPOSE AND APPLICATION ................................................................. 14 10 Purpose
    [Show full text]
  • Senate Substitute
    2012 SESSION SENATE SUBSTITUTE 12105312D 1 SENATE BILL NO. 111 2 FLOOR AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE 3 (Proposed by Senator Howell 4 on February 9, 2012) 5 (Patron Prior to Substitute±±Senator Howell) 6 A BILL to amend and reenact § 19.2-306 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by 7 adding a section numbered 19.2-303.6, relating to establishing Sanctions with Unified Rapid 8 Enforcement (SURE). 9 Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 10 1. That § 19.2-306 of the Code of Virginia is amended and reenacted and that the Code of 11 Virginia is amended by adding a section numbered 19.2-303.6 as follows: 12 § 19.2-303.6. Sanctions with Unified Rapid Enforcement (SURE). 13 A. There is hereby created a program designated as Sanctions with Unified Rapid Enforcement 14 (SURE). SENATE 15 B. A person placed in the SURE program shall be frequently reviewed by the probation and parole 16 district office to ensure that the person has not violated any conditions of his suspended sentence. If a 17 probation officer has probable cause to believe that a person in the SURE program has violated any 18 condition of his suspension, he shall, without exception, under the provisions of § 53.1-149, immediately 19 arrest the defendant or cause him to be arrested by issuing a noncompliance statement. The defendant 20 shall not be admitted to bail. After being taken into custody, the defendant shall be brought before the 21 court within 48 hours, except that if the defendant is taken into custody on a Friday or the day before 22 an extended holiday, his hearing before the court shall be given precedence on the docket.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife and Criminal Law Workbook.Pdf
    TRAINING MODULE WILDLIFE AND CRIMINAL LAW Strengthening Legal Mechanisms to Combat Illicit Wildlife Trade Workbook PREFACE This workbook provides a broad and generic background to using criminal law as a mechanism to combat illicit and unsustainable wildlife trade, with prosecutors and the judiciary as the main audience. The challenge of such a task is the differences in legal systems and differences in domestic legislation between countries. The intention, and hope, is that trainers will use this workbook as a basis and framework to develop more comprehensive and country-specific training modules for the prosecution of wildlife offences. Such modules can serve as capacity building materials in a training workshop, or as part of a university course. With the above in mind, instructors and participants are encouraged throughout the workbook to provide country specific information, and to identify aspects that should be added or amended. This workbook is designed for use with a seminar presentation and interactive exercises available at: www.wildlex.org. Additional materials and resources are also available on that website, as well as a database of wildlife related legislation and case law. These materials were developed for IUCN by Phil Snijman and Lydia Slobodian, with the support of Lorélie Escot. The project is supported and implemented within the Polifund project “Combating poaching and illegal wildlife trade in Africa and Asia” implemented by GIZ on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) and the German Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB). The Polifund combines the expertise and resources of five German ministries, international organisations and NGOs to combat poaching and the illegal trade in wildlife products (ivory and rhino-horn) in Africa and Asia.
    [Show full text]
  • AGGRAVATED VEHICULAR HOMICIDE (Reckless Driving; Vehicular Manslaughter; BAC .18) Penal Law § 125.14 (1) (Committed on Or After Nov
    AGGRAVATED VEHICULAR HOMICIDE (Reckless Driving; Vehicular Manslaughter; BAC .18) Penal Law § 125.14 (1) (Committed on or after Nov. 1, 2007) (Revised January, 2013) 1 The (specify) count is Aggravated Vehicular Homicide. Under our law, a person is guilty of Aggravated Vehicular Homicide when he or she engages in Reckless Driving2 and commits the crime of Vehicular Manslaughter in the Second Degree3 and does so4 while operating a motor vehicle while he or she has .18 of one per centum or more by weight of alcohol in his or her blood as shown by chemical analysis of his or her blood, breath, urine or saliva.5 The following terms used in that definition have a special meaning: A person ENGAGES IN RECKLESS DRIVING when that 1 The 2013 revision was for the purpose of inserting into the charge the law as applied to a reckless driving charge where the driver is also alleged to have been intoxicated. See footnote eight and the text it references. 2 At this point, the statute continues: “as defined by section twelve hundred twelve of the vehicle and traffic law.” That definition is utilized in this charge in the definition of “reckless driving.” 3 At this point, the statute continues: “as defined in section 125.12 of this article.” 4 The "and does so" is substituted for the statutory language of: "and commits such crimes." The reference to "crimes" in the context of this statute is not correct. While "reckless driving" is a crime, the statute does not recite that the offender must commit the "crime" of "reckless driving"; rather, the statute recites that the offender must "engage" in "reckless driving." 5 At this point, the statute continues “made pursuant to the provisions of section eleven hundred ninety-four of the vehicle and traffic law.” person drives or uses any motor vehicle,6 in a manner which unreasonably interferes with the free and proper use of a public highway, road, street, or avenue, or unreasonably endangers users of a public highway, road, street, or avenue.7 Intoxication, absent more, does not establish reckless driving.
    [Show full text]
  • Sanctions for Drunk Driving Accidents Resulting in Serious Injuries And/Or Death
    Sanctions for Drunk Driving Accidents Resulting in Serious Injuries and/or Death State Statutory Citation Description of Penalty Alabama Ala. Code §§ 13A-6-20 & Serious Bodily Injury: Driving under the influence that result in the 13A-5-6(a)(2) serious bodily injury of another person is assault in the first degree, Ala. Code § 13A-6-4 which is a Class B felony. These felonies are punishable by no more than 20 years and no less than two years incarceration. Criminally Negligent Homicide: A person commits the crime of criminally negligent homicide by causing the death of another through criminally negligent conduct. If the death is caused while operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, the punishment is increased to a Class C felony, which is punishable by a prison term of no more than 10 years or less than 1 year and one day. Alaska Alaska Stat. §§ Homicide by Vehicle: Vehicular homicide can be second degree 11.41.110(a)(2), murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide, depending 11.41.120(a), & on the facts surrounding the death (see Puzewicz v. State, 856 P.2d 11.41.130(a) 1178, 1181 (Alaska App. 1993). Alaska Stat. Ann. § Second degree murder is an unclassified felony and shall be 12.55.125 (West) imprisoned for not less than 15 years nor more than 99 years Manslaughter is a class A felony and punishable by a sentence of not more than 20 years in prison. Criminally Negligent Homicide is a class B felony and punishable by a term of imprisonment of not more than 10 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Penal Code Offenses by Punishment Range Office of the Attorney General 2
    PENAL CODE BYOFFENSES PUNISHMENT RANGE Including Updates From the 85th Legislative Session REV 3/18 Table of Contents PUNISHMENT BY OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................... 2 PENALTIES FOR REPEAT AND HABITUAL OFFENDERS .......................................................... 4 EXCEPTIONAL SENTENCES ................................................................................................... 7 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 4 ................................................................................................. 8 INCHOATE OFFENSES ........................................................................................................... 8 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 5 ............................................................................................... 11 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON ....................................................................................... 11 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 6 ............................................................................................... 18 OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY ......................................................................................... 18 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 7 ............................................................................................... 20 OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY .......................................................................................... 20 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 8 ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance Exceptions
    Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences: The Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance Exceptions Updated February 22, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R41326 SUMMARY R41326 Federal Mandatory Minimum Sentences: February 22, 2019 The Safety Valve and Substantial Assistance Charles Doyle Exceptions Senior Specialist in American Public Law Federal law requires a sentencing judge to impose a minimum sentence of imprisonment following conviction for any of a number of federal offenses. Congress has created three exceptions. Two are available in any case where the prosecutor asserts that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the criminal investigation or prosecution of another. The other, commonly referred to as the safety valve, is available, without the government’s approval, for a handful of the more commonly prosecuted drug trafficking and unlawful possession offenses that carry minimum sentences. Qualification for the substantial assistance exceptions is ordinarily only possible upon the motion of the government. In rare cases, the court may compel the government to file such a motion when the defendant can establish that the refusal to do so was based on constitutionally invalid considerations, or was in derogation of a plea bargain obligation or was the product of bad faith. Qualification for the safety valve exception requires a defendant to satisfy five criteria. His past criminal record must be minimal; he must not have been a leader, organizer, or supervisor in the commission of the offense; he must not have used violence in the commission of the offense, and the offense must not have resulted in serious injury; and prior to sentencing, he must tell the government all that he knows of the offense and any related misconduct.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Felony Murder Rule: Purpose and Effect
    The American Felony Murder Rule: Purpose and Effect Daniel Ganz 21090905 UC Berkeley, Spring 2012 Legal Studies Honors Thesis Supervised by Professor Richard Perry Ganz 1 I. Abstract Most US states have a felony murder rule, which allows prosecutors to charge felons with murder for any death that occurs during and because of the commission of the felony. This allows the felon to be convicted with murder without requiring the prosecution to prove the mens rea that would otherwise be necessary for a murder conviction. Much of the legal scholarship indicates that the purpose of the felony murder rule is to deter felonies and to make felons limit their use of violence while they're committing the felony by making the felon internalize more fully the negative consequences of their actions. It's unclear whether legislatures that adopt felony murder rules are more concerned with deterring criminal behavior or making criminals less violent when committing felonies. We analyze judicial decisions to infer what judges believed were the intentions of the legislatures that adopted felony murder statutes. We also use regression analysis to determine whether felony murder statutes are correlated with lower crime rates or lower rates of the average number of deaths that occur during felonies. We do this both by modeling felony rates and rates of felony- related deaths as a function of whether a state has a felony murder rule, and by determining how felony rates and rates of felony-related deaths change when a state adopts or abolishes a felony murder rule. Our results indicate that the felony murder rule does not have a significant effect on crime rates or crime-related death rates.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System
    A GUIDE TO MENTAL ILLNESS AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM A SYSTEMS GUIDE FOR FAMILIES AND CONSUMERS National Alliance on Mental Illness Department of Policy and Legal Affairs 2107 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22201 Helpline: 800-950-NAMI NAMI – Guide to Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System FOREWORD Tragically, jails and prisons are emerging as the "psychiatric hospitals" of the 1990s. A sample of 1400 NAMI families surveyed in 1991 revealed that 40 percent of family members with severe mental illness had been arrested one or more times. Other national studies reveal that approximately 8 percent of all jail and prison inmates suffer from severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorders. These statistics are a direct reflection of the failure of public mental health systems to provide appropriate care and treatment to individuals with severe mental illnesses. These horrifying statistics point directly to the need of NAMI families and consumers to develop greater familiarity with the workings of their local criminal justice systems. Key personnel in these systems, such as police officers, prosecutors, public defenders and jail employees may have limited knowledge about severe mental illness and the needs of those who suffer from these illnesses. Moreover, the procedures, terminology and practices which characterize the criminal justice system are likely to be bewildering for consumers and family members alike. This guide is intended to serve as an aid for those people thrust into interaction with local criminal justice systems. Since criminal procedures are complicated and often differ from state to state, readers are urged to consult the laws and procedures of their states and localities.
    [Show full text]