The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: Document Title: Sentencing and Corrections in the 21st Century: Setting the Stage for the Future Author(s): Doris L. Mackenzie Document No.: 189089 Date Received: 11/30/2001 Award Number: 96-SC-LX-0001 This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federally- funded grant final report available electronically in addition to traditional paper copies. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Sentencing and Corrections in the 21st Century: Setting the Stage for the Future Doris Layton Mackenzie Director and Professor Evaluation Research Group Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice University of Maryland College Park, MD July 2001 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Contents Growth of Correctional Populations ............................................... 1 Differencesamong States ...................................................... 3 Race. ethnicity. andgender ..................................................... 3 Correctional expenditures ...................................................... 5 From Indeterminacy to Crime Control ............................................. 6 The age of indeterminate sentencing and rehabilitation ................................. 6 Atimeofchange:197&2000 .................................................. 7 The justice model of sentencing and corrections ..................................... 9 Crime control: Incapacitation and deterrence ........................................ 9 Changes in Crime Rates ....................................................... 13 Factors Accounting for the Growth in the Incarceration Rate ......................... 14 Community supervision and revocations .......................................... 16 ImpactoftheChanges ........................................................ 17 Structured sentencing ........................................................ 17 Mandatory sentences ........................................................ 18 Three-strikes laws .......................................................... 19 Parolerelease ............................................................. 19 Decisionmaking ............................................................ 20 prisoncrowding ............................................................ 20 Behavioral, cultural, and social changes impinging on corrections ....................... -21 Examining the Effectiveness of Different Strategies ................................ 21 Incapacitation and deterrence .................................................. 21 Controversy over costs ...................................................... 23 Intermediatesanctions ....................................................... 24 Rehabilitation: What works in corrections? ........................................ 25 Intended and Unintended Consequences .......................................... 29 Risk management and the new penology .......................................... 29 Minoritypopulations ......................................................... 30 1 This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Impact on individual offenders ................................................. 3 I Unintended consequences for the community ...................................... 32 EmergingParadigms .......................................................... 33 Restorative and community justice ............................................. -33 Reemerging interest in treatment ................................................ 35 Specializedcourts .......................................................... 35 Reinteptionandreentry ..................................................... 36 Technology ............................................................... 36 Evidence-based corrections .................................................. -37 Conclusion .................................................................. 38 Notes ...................................................................... 38 Exhibits Exhibit 1. U.S. Incarceration Rates. State and Federal hstitutions. 1930-98 ...............2 Exhibit 2 . Adults on Probation and Parole and in Prison. 1980-97 ..................... -2 Exhiit 3 . Rates of Sentenced Prisoners. Selected States. 1980.1990. 1997 ..............3 Exhibit 4 . Number of People in Prison. on Probation. and on Parole. by Gender ............ 4 Exhibit 5. lncarceration Rates. Prisons and Jails. by Race and Gender. 1985-96 ........... 5 Exhibit 6. U.S . Crime and Incarceration Rates. 1965-97 ............................ 10 Exhibit 7. Djscrepancy Between Sentence and Time Served. Comparing State Prisoners Released From Prison in 1996 With Expected Time Served for New Admissions .................................................. 12 Exhibit 8. Increases in State Prison Populations. by Offense. 1980-96 .................. 15 Exhibit 9. Number of Prisoners in Custody of State Correctional Authorities. by Most Serious Crime.198 0-95 .................................................. 15 Exhibit 10 . Percentage of Admissions to State Prisons. 1985.1993. 1997 ................ 17 Exhibit 1 1 . State Sentencing Structures. 1997 ..................................... 18 Acknowledgments Thanks are expressed to Sean Rosenmerkel and Rubie G . Mize for help with this manuscript. This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. The past 30 years have seen enormous changes in the philosophy and practice of sentencing and 0 corrections. The strong emphasis on rehabilitation that existed for the first seven decades of the 20th century gave way in the 1970s to a focus on faimess and justice, by which sentences reflected “just deserts” rather than a utilitarian motive. Sentencing practices later moved toward a crime-control model that emphasized incarceration as a way to reduce crime in the community; this crime-control model became increasingly popular during the 1980s and 1990s. Discussion of sentencing and corrections in the 21 st century must begin with a review of these changes and their impact on the criminal justice system. The historical changes in sentencing and corrections policies and practices can be characterized, in part, by the emphasis on different goals. Four major goals are usually attributed to the sentencing process: retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, and incapacitation. Retribution refers to just deserts: people who break the law deserve to be punished. The other three goals are utilitarian, emphasizing methods to protect the public. They differ, however, in the mechamsm expected to provide public safety. Deterrence emphasizes the onerousness of punishment; offenders are deterred fiom committing crimes because of a rational calculation that the cost of punishment is too pat. The punishment is so repugnant that neither the punished offender (specific deterrence) nor others (general deterrence) commit crimes in the future. lncapacitation deprives people of the capacity to commit crimes because they are physically detained in prison. Rehabilitation attempts to modify offendem’ behavior and thinking so they do not continue to commit crimes. Although sentences fiequently address several of these goals in practice, the emphasis on which goal is the highest priority has changed dramatically in the a past 30 years. At the same time the goals of punishment have been changing, the number of people in the United States who are under correctional supervision has increased enormously. Changes in the practice and philosophy of sentencing and corrections have clearly had a major impact on incarceration rates. However, there is no consensus on what, specifically, has caused the changes, the impact of the changes, or their intended and unintended consequences. This paper explores these issues. Growth of Correctional Populations A dramatic increase in offenderpopulations accompanied changes in sentencing and correctional philosophy; this increase was unprecedented and followed a period of relative stability (exhibit 1). From 1930 to 1975 the average incarceration rate was 106 inmates per 100,000 adults in the population. The rate fluctuated only slightly, from a low of 93 to a maximum of 137 per 100,000.’ This was the age of indeterminate sentencing and rehabilitation. ARer 1975 incarceration rates grew tremendously; by 1985 the incarceration rate for individuals in State or Federal prisons was 202 per 100,000 adults in the population. The rate continued to grow, reaching 41 1 in 1995 and 445 in 1997. If local jail populations are also considered,