Truth in sentencing

Last updated

Truth in sentencing (TIS) is a collection of different but related public policy stances on sentencing of those convicted of crimes in the justice system. In most contexts, it refers to policies and legislation that aim to abolish or curb parole so that convicts serve the period to which they have been sentenced. Truth in sentencing advocates relate such policies in terms of the public's right to know. They argue, for example, that it is deceptive to sentence an individual to "seven-to-nine years" and then release them after they have served only six years.

Contents

In some cases, truth in sentencing is linked to other movements, such as mandatory sentencing (in which particular crimes yield automatic sentences regardless of the extenuating circumstances) and habitual-offender or "three-strikes" laws, in which state law requires the state courts to hand down mandatory and extended periods of incarceration to persons who have been convicted of a criminal offense on multiple occasions.

Canada

In Canada, the Truth in Sentencing act, or Bill C-25 [1] came into effect on Monday, February 22, 2010. [2] This bill amends s.719 of the Criminal Code of Canada, limiting the discretion of a sentencing judges to give credit to individuals who have spent time incarcerated prior to conviction. Until then, as discussed by Justice Arbour in R v. Wust, [3] credit for pre-sentencing custody was not determined by a 'mathematical formula', but many judges frequently granted a two-for-one credit.

That is justified by the quantitative and qualitative differences between pre-and post-sentencing incarceration. Most individuals who are incarcerated will not serve the full length of their sentence, and because time spent incarcerated pre-sentence does not count towards remission time, if a lengthy pre-sentence incarceration is credited equally to post-sentencing incarceration, the convicted individual will serve a longer sentence compared to an individual who is given the same sentence without a lengthy period of pre-sentencing incarceration. Arbour also points out that pre-sentence incarceration is typically served in detention, in harsher circumstances than the sentence will ultimately call for and without access to educational, rehabilitative and vocational programs.

Bill C-25 creates three changes in the Criminal Code; [4] now under s.719(3), generally the maximum credit a judge can give is 1:1. Under s.719(3.1) and 719(3.2) a judge can give a credit of 1.5:1 only "if the circumstances justify it." Under s.719(3.1), the sentencing judge cannot give greater than 1:1 credit if the reason for pre-sentencing incarceration is either that person's criminal record or if that individual has breached bail conditions.

The constitutionality of this bill was challenged under s.7, s.13 and s.15 of The Charter in the Ontario Court of Justice by Marvin Johnson. [5] The court found that the amendment survivor Charter scrutiny if the phrase if the circumstances justify it is interpreted in a manner that does not limit the granting of a 1.5:1 credit to such a high standard "that mandates a level of exceptionality that goes well beyond the ordinary experience of "dead time" or the penal disparities that typically flow from such pre-sentence custody." In this case, Johnson who was sentenced to 18 months for the sale of $20 of cocaine to an undercover officer, was given a 1.5:1 credit for the 12 months that he had spent in pre-sentence custody and was released two days after his sentencing hearing to a one year period of probation.

United States

The first law requiring truth in sentencing in the United States was passed by Washington State in 1984. In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act created the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth in Sentencing program, which awarded grants to states so long as they passed laws requiring that offenders convicted of Part 1 violent crimes must serve at least 85% of the sentence for qualifying crimes before becoming eligible for parole. [6] As of 2008, the District of Columbia and 35 of the 50 states qualify for this additional funding.

Australia

In New South Wales, "truth in sentencing" was brought in with the '1989 Sentencing Act'. The term "truth in sentencing", which was commonly used to refer to the legislation, was endorsed by the Australian Law Reform Commission. [7] As the legislation removed inmates receiving time off for good behaviour, it is also said to have removed an important incentive for prisoners to behave, and motivated some to attempt to escape. [8] Alongside behaviour, motivation and work and educational performance from prisoners subsequently deteriorated, as did the rapport between prisoners and officers. [9] Its introduction also resulted in significant overcrowding in NSW prisons during the 1990s. [10] [11] [12]

The first murderer to be sentenced under the legislation was Matthew Webster, who was convicted of the murder of Leigh Leigh. In 1990 Webster received 14 years with an additional six-year parole period; he remained in prison for 14½ years. If he had received a 'life sentence' under the previous legislation, it is likely that he would have only served nine years due to his age. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which convicted criminals are to remain in prison for the rest of their natural lives. Crimes that warrant life imprisonment are extremely serious and usually violent. Examples of these crimes are murder, torture, terrorism, child abuse resulting in death, rape, espionage, treason, Illegal drug trade, human trafficking, severe fraud and financial crimes, aggravated Property damage, arson, hate crime, kidnapping, burglary, and robbery, piracy, aircraft hijacking, and genocide.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">1994 Oregon Ballot Measure 11</span> Citizens initiative passed in 1994

Measure 11, also known as "One Strike You're Out", was a citizens' initiative passed in 1994 in the U.S. State of Oregon. This statutory enactment established mandatory minimum sentencing for several crimes. The measure was approved in the November 8, 1994 general election with 788,695 votes in favor, and 412,816 votes against.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Parole</span> Provisional release of a prisoner who agrees to certain conditions

Parole is a form of early release of a prison inmate where the prisoner agrees to abide by behavioral conditions, including checking-in with their designated parole officers, or else they may be rearrested and returned to prison.

Probation in criminal law is a period of supervision over an offender, ordered by the court often in lieu of incarceration.

In the United States, habitual offender laws have been implemented since at least 1952, and are part of the United States Justice Department's Anti-Violence Strategy. These laws require a person who is convicted of an offense and who has one or two other previous serious convictions to serve a mandatory life sentence in prison, with or without parole depending on the jurisdiction. The purpose of the laws is to drastically increase the punishment of those who continue to commit offenses after being convicted of one or two serious crimes.

Mandatory sentencing requires that offenders serve a predefined term of imprisonment for certain crimes, commonly serious or violent offenses. Judges are bound by law; these sentences are produced through the legislature, not the judicial system. They are instituted to expedite the sentencing process and limit the possibility of irregularity of outcomes due to judicial discretion. Mandatory sentences are typically given to people who are convicted of certain serious and/or violent crimes, and require a prison sentence. Mandatory sentencing laws vary across nations; they are more prevalent in common law jurisdictions because civil law jurisdictions usually prescribe minimum and maximum sentences for every type of crime in explicit laws.

In Canada and England and Wales, certain convicted persons may be designated as dangerous offenders and subject to a longer, or indefinite, term of imprisonment in order to protect the public. Dangerousness in law is a legal establishment of the risk that a person poses to cause harm. Other countries, including Denmark, Norway, and parts of the United States have similar provisions of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Probation and parole officer</span> Officials who supervise the conduct of offenders on community supervision

A probation or parole officer is an official appointed or sworn to investigate, report on, and supervise the conduct of convicted offenders on probation or those released from incarceration to community supervision such as parole. Most probation and parole officers are employed by the government of the jurisdiction in which they operate, although some are employed by private companies that provide contracted services to the government.

A habitual offender, repeat offender, or career criminal is a person convicted of a crime who was previously convicted of other crimes. Various state and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via imprisonment.

In England and Wales, life imprisonment is a sentence that lasts until the death of the prisoner, although in most cases the prisoner will be eligible for early release after a minimum term set by the judge. In exceptional cases a judge may impose a "whole life order", meaning that the offender is never considered for parole, although they may still be released on compassionate grounds at the discretion of the Home Secretary. Whole life orders are usually imposed for aggravated murder, and can only be imposed where the offender was at least 21 years old at the time of the offence being committed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal sentencing in the United States</span> Overview of criminal sentencing in the United States

In the United States, sentencing law varies by jurisdiction. The jurisdictions in the US legal system are federal, state, regional, and county. Each jurisdictional entity has governmental bodies that create common, statutory, and regulatory law, although some legal issues are handled more often at the federal level, while other issues are the domain of the states. Civil rights, immigration, interstate commerce, and constitutional issues are subject to federal jurisdiction. Issues such as domestic relations, which includes domestic violence; marriage and divorce; corporations; property; contracts; and criminal laws are generally governed by states, unless there is federal preemption.

Indefinite imprisonment or indeterminate imprisonment is the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment with no definite period of time set during sentencing. It was imposed by certain nations in the past, before the drafting of the United Nations Convention against Torture (CAT). The length of an indefinite imprisonment was determined during imprisonment based on the inmate's conduct. The inmate could have been returned to society or be kept in prison for life.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal sentencing in Canada</span> Overview of criminal sentencing in Canada

Canadian criminal law is governed by the Criminal Code, which includes the principles and powers in relation to criminal sentencing in Canada.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marsy's Law</span> California law regarding victim legal rights and parole boards

Marsy's Law, the California Victims' Bill of Rights Act of 2008, enacted by voters as Proposition 9 through the initiative process in the November 2008 general election, is an amendment to the state's constitution and certain penal code sections. The act protects and expands the legal rights of victims of crime to include 17 rights in the judicial process, including the right to legal standing, protection from the defendant, notification of all court proceedings, and restitution, as well as granting parole boards far greater powers to deny inmates parole. Critics allege that the law unconstitutionally restricts defendant's rights by allowing prosecutors to withhold exculpatory evidence under certain circumstances, and harms victims by restricting their rights to discovery, depositions, and interviews. Passage of this law in California led to the passage of similar laws in Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Ohio and Wisconsin, and efforts to pass similar laws in Hawaii, Iowa, Montana, Idaho, South Dakota, and Pennsylvania. In November 2017, Marsy's Law was found to be unconstitutional and void in its entirety by the Supreme Court of Montana for violating that state's procedure for amending the Montana Constitution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reached the same conclusion as Montana under its own state constitution in 2021.

A Gladue report is a type of pre-sentencing and bail hearing report that a Canadian court can request when considering sentencing an offender of Indigenous background under Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal justice reform in the United States</span> Reforms seeking to address structural issues in criminal justice systems of the United States

Criminal justice reform seeks to address structural issues in criminal justice systems such as racial profiling, police brutality, overcriminalization, mass incarceration, and recidivism. Reforms can take place at any point where the criminal justice system intervenes in citizens’ lives, including lawmaking, policing, sentencing and incarceration. Criminal justice reform can also address the collateral consequences of conviction, including disenfranchisement or lack of access to housing or employment, that may restrict the rights of individuals with criminal records.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lifetime probation</span>

Lifetime probation is reserved for relatively serious legal offenders. The ultimate purpose of lifetime probation is to examine whether offenders properly maintain good behavior as well as capability of patience under lifetime probation serving circumstance. An offender is required to abide by particular conditions for rest of their entire life in order to nurture superior social behaviour as a punishment for their criminal offence. Condition of probation orders contain supervision, electronic tagging, reporting to his or her probation or parole officer, as well as attending counselling. The essential component of lifetime probation carries the sense of being examined for well-being character and behaviour for life term period. Legislative framework regarding probation may vary depending on the country or the state within a certain country as well as the duration and condition of probational sentencing.

Sentencing reform is the effort to change perceived injustices in the lengths of criminal sentences. It is a component of the larger concept of criminal justice reform. In the U.S. criminal justice system, sentencing guidelines are criticized for being both draconian and racially discriminatory. Additionally, they are cited as the main contributor to the growing and excessive prison population known as mass incarceration.

The Uniform Determinate Sentencing Act of 1976 was a bill signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown to changes sentencing requirements in the California Penal Code. The act converted most sentences from an "indeterminate" sentence length at the discretion of the parole board to a "determinate" sentence length specified by the state legislature. The act was one of the largest drivers in a ninefold increase in California's prison population in the two decades after the act passed.

Criminal sentencing in Canada is governed by the Canadian Criminal Code. The Criminal Code, along with the Supreme Court of Canada, have distinguished the treatment of Indigenous individuals within the Canadian Criminal Sentencing Regime.

References

  1. ↑ "Legislative Summary of Bill C-25: Truth in Sentencing Act". Archived from the original on 17 October 2012.
  2. ↑ "Truth in Sentencing Act comes into effect | CBC News".
  3. ↑ "R. v. Wust, 2000 SCC 18 (CanLII), [2000] 1 SCR 455". canlii.org. Retrieved 31 July 2023.
  4. ↑ "Criminal Code" (PDF). justice.gc.ca. Retrieved 31 July 2023.
  5. ↑ http://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2011/2011oncj77/2011oncj77.html, R v. Johnson 2011 ONCJ 77
  6. ↑ Ditton, Paula M.; Wilson, Doris James (January 1999). "Truth in Sentencing in State Prisons" (PDF). Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved 30 April 2016.
  7. ↑ Cunneen, Chris (March 1992). "Dangers and opportunities in the sentencing crisis" (PDF). Current Issues in Criminal Justice . 3 (3). Sydney Law School: 349. doi:10.1080/10345329.1992.12036539 . Retrieved 5 September 2014.
  8. ↑ Dapin, Mark (2020). Public Enemies. Allen & Unwin. pp. 263–265. ISBN   978-1760295356.
  9. ↑ Grant, David (1992). Prisons: The Continuing Crisis in NSW. Federation Press. pp. 24, 27. ISBN   1-86287-085-3.
  10. ↑ O'Toole, Sean (2006). The History of Australian Corrections. University of New South Wales Press. p. 163. ISBN   0-86840-915-4.
  11. ↑ Brown, David (1990). "Putting the value back in punishment". Legal Service Bulletin . 15: 239–246.
  12. ↑ Grant, David (1992). Prisons: The Continuing Crisis in NSW. Federation Press. p. 197. ISBN   1-86287-085-3.
  13. ↑ "Dowd 'understands' calls of death for girls killer". The Newcastle Herald . 26 October 1990. p. 1.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.