Trends in Sentencing and Corrections State Legislation Trends in Sentencing and Corrections: State Legislation Trends in Sentencing and Corrections State Legislation By Alison Lawrence National Conference of State Legislatures William T. Pound, Executive Director 7700 East First Place Denver, Colo. 80230 (303) 364-7700 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 515 Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 624-5400 www.ncsl.org July 2013 Printed on recycled paper. © 2013 by the National Conference of State Legislatures. All rights reserved. ISBN 978-1-58024-696-5 2 National Conference of State Legislatures Trends in Sentencing and Corrections: State Legislation tate legislatures have been pivotal in Common developing sentencing and corrections Denominators strategies that focus on a trio of objec- S A distinguishing fea- tives: protecting public safety, holding offend- ers accountable, and doing so while making ture of some of the best use of fiscal resources. Significant trends most comprehensive have emerged in legislative leadership and state legislation has been cross-governmental plan- legislation in meeting these responsibilities. ning that involves stakeholders in all branches Actions have included expanding eligibility and at all levels of government. Setting apart for community corrections and improving su- the efforts of these groups from that of pre- pervision, employing the use of diversion and decessors has been their ability to collect and treatment, revising sentence lengths and priori- make effective use of data. A growing number tizing prison resources. of states have engaged in a “justice reinvest- ment” process that involves data collection and A decade ago, rising prison populations and analysis of trends that drive prison populations costs seemed to be an uninterruptable trend. and costs; and development and adoption of Today, however, many states have seen a de- policies addressing those factors. At least 27 cline in the number of individuals under cor- states have enacted justice reinvestment reforms rectional supervision. The U.S. Department in recent years. This strategy is characterized by of Justice recently reported that state prison reallocating funds to support effective sentenc- populations decreased in 2011 for the second ing and corrections policies and, in some states, consecutive year, and the probation and parole by reinvesting a portion of the savings achieved population decreased for the third consecutive from policy changes in programs proven to re- year. Recidivism rates—the number of people duce recidivism. In addition, states have put who return to prison for a new crime or a com- ongoing evaluation and oversight into place to munity supervision violation—also are declin- ensure that policy choices continue to be data- ing or have remained steady in many states. driven and that the desired results are achieved. These changes have occurred during a decade in which the rates of both property and violent Data-driven decision making has been paired in crime have dropped, and been largely unaffect- states with evidence-based corrections practices ed by the nation’s recent economic downturn. and programs. These practices include the use of reliable risk and needs assessments to help Sentencing and corrections legislation de- identify those offenders who are more likely to scribed in this report has been prevalent and reoffend and to place offenders in appropriate impactful. Actions in a growing number of programs and supervision levels. Improvements states in recent years have set states on a new and investments in supervision technology are course, both with data-driven strategies and included in legislation that is intended to cost- with results measured in terms of reductions in effectively and safely manage offenders in the crime and recidivism. community. Policy changes in many states also have included authorizing swift, certain and graduated responses to offenders who break community supervision rules. National Conference of State Legislatures 3 Trends in Sentencing and Corrections: State Legislation Lawmakers in a growing number of states have with a crime that has a presumption of prison addressed the drug-crime connection with and are assessed as drug-dependent instead be policies that divert appropriate offenders to sentenced to drug court supervision. A 2011 treatment; while similar initiatives focus on the Kentucky law that made a number of changes mental health needs of some defendants. Other to drug sentencing policies included a require- actions have addressed the costs and benefits of ment that offenders convicted of first and sec- certain mandatory sentences for drug offend- ond time drug possession receive probation or ers and other nonviolent crimes. A significant deferred prosecution. Changes to the drug laws policy trend trims time served for inmates who are estimated to save the state nearly $7 million participate in and complete programs that will in FY 2013 and more than $11 million in FY improve their success in the community and 2014. reduce recidivism. At least 17 states have ad- Today, a resolve exists justed drug penalty thresh- throughout state govern- olds and classifications, ment to adopt results- with significant revisions in based policies. Collectively, Arkansas, Colorado, Dela- these trends in sentencing ware, Georgia, Kentucky, and corrections legislation Ohio and South Caro- are meeting states’ goals for lina. States have lowered public safety, offender ac- penalties for possession of countability and cost-effec- small amounts of drugs tive use of corrections resources. while maintaining or increasing penalties for larger quantities and drug trafficking offenses. Adjusting Sentences Georgia legislation incorporated the weight of In recent years, states have re-examined who drugs into offense classes and based penalties goes to prison and for how long. Legislative for possession on amounts. The 2012 law also action has focused on preserving costly prison narrowed the drug offenses eligible for repeat space for the most dangerous offenders and on offender sentences and reduced mandatory authorizing non-prison sanctions when appro- minimum prison terms for some drug offenses. priate. Georgia is among at least 15 states that have The past few years have seen a steady increase in relaxed mandatory minimum sentences since sentencing policy changes with regard to drug 2009. Legislation in at least 10 of those states crimes. From 2009 to 2012, 24 states made eliminated mandatory prison terms or permit- changes to offense classification and penalties. ted discretion for some low-level or first-time More than half of those states authorized di- drug offenders. In 2009, Rhode Island removed version of lower-level drug offenders into com- mandatory minimum terms for manufacturing munity supervision and treatment. In 2012, or selling drugs. A 2010 South Carolina law New Jersey lawmakers created the require- eliminated mandatory minimum sentences for ment that certain defendants who are charged first, second and some third drug possession convictions. 4 National Conference of State Legislatures Trends in Sentencing and Corrections: State Legislation At least seven states in recent years have ad- their thresholds to $1,500; up justed mandatory penalties for certain repeat from $500 or $1,000. South offenders. In Massachusetts, for example, law- Carolina increased their felony makers in 2012 reduced the mandatory prison theft threshold from $1,000 to term for repeat drug manufacturing and traf- $2,000 in 2010. ficking crimes. At the same time, a new class Figure 1 on page 6 shows states of habitual offenders was created; a mandatory that have made changes to their sentence applies to those who have been con- drug penalties, mandatory mini- victed of the most serious crimes on three sepa- mum sentences and theft thresh- rate occasions. These policies seek to balance olds. the need to protect the public from dangerous offenders with other, more cost-effective sen- Improving Community Supervision tencing policies for some lower-risk offenders. Effective community supervision strategies can Penalties for selling drugs in school zones have hold offenders accountable, improve results been modified in 11 states. Delaware, Ken- and maximize corrections resources. An emerg- tucky and Massachusetts decreased the area ing trend in states is requiring corrections agen- of the school zone. South Carolina added an cies to employ policies and programs proven to intent element to school zone offenses; pros- reduce recidivism. In 2003, the Oregon Leg- ecutors must now prove defendants knew they islative Assembly pioneered a policy requiring were selling drugs in school zones. Laws in phased-in implementation of evidence-based Arkansas, Hawaii and Texas added additional practices for all state-funded corrections pro- locations—such as public housing and play- grams. Since 2009, about a dozen states have grounds—where selling drugs will now qualify required that some or all offenders in the com- for enhanced penalties. munity be supervised using practices that re- search and evaluation have demonstrated can Since 2009, at least 14 states have adjusted fel- reduce recidivism. ony theft threshold amounts to keep pace with inflation and the increase in prices of consumer Illinois and Kentucky have adopted laws that goods. In Nevada, for example, the monetary gradually require certain programs to be based threshold had not been adjusted since 1989. on research and evidence. The Kentucky cor- Lawmakers