June 9, 2014

Two Decades of Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia

VIRGINIA CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION

The abolition of parole was a key issue in the

1993 gubernatorial campaign.

Truth-in-sentencing

Transparency

Soon after his inauguration, the new governor

formed a task force to develop a comprehensive

sentencing reform plan.

Task force staff conducted a thorough review

of historical sentencing practices

and time served under the existing parole

system.

Sentencing Reform in Virginia

2

Under the parole system, Virginia’s inmates were serving a fraction of the sentences ordered by the court.

Average Prison Sentence and Time Served for Inmates Released in 1993

3

Goals of Sentencing Reform:

Abolish parole

Establish truth-in-sentencing (minimum 85% time served)

Target violent felons for longer terms of incarceration

Redirect prison-bound low-risk offenders to less costly sanctions

Expand alternative punishment options for some nonviolent felons

Reduce sentencing disparities

Create a sentencing commission to oversee a voluntary sentencing guidelines system

Adopted during a 1994 Special Session of the General Assembly, the sentencing reform provisions took effect for felonies committed on or after January 1, 1995.

Virginia’s Sentencing Reform Legislation (1994)

4

Now that Virginia is approaching 20 years under

the truth-in-sentencing/no-parole system, the

Commission can take a close look at the impact of

sentencing reform.

Some analysis was conducted for the 10-year

anniversary of truth-in-sentencing.

New analysis can be completed to examine

various aspects of Virginia’s sentencing system

and length-of-stay.

Two Decades of Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia

5

1st Degree Murder

2nd Degree Murder

Voluntary Manslaughter

Rape/Forcible Sodomy

Malicious Wounding

Robbery

Burglary

Sale of Schedule I/II Drug

Sale of Marijuana

Larceny

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Truth-in-SentencingParole System

85%

Parole system data represent FY1993 prison releases; truth-in-sentencing data is derived from the rate of sentence credits earned among prison inmates as of December 31, 2007

Under truth-in-sentencing, felons are serving at least 85% of the sentence ordered by the court.

6

Historical time served was increased or “enhanced” by

100%, 300%, or 500% for offenders with current or prior

violent felony convictions

Note: Certain burglaries are defined by § 17.1-805 as violent crimes. Violent offender definition includes including juvenile adjudications.

Level of Guidelines Enhancement

Current Violent Offense/No Violent Priors

Less Serious Violent Priors

More Serious Violent Priors

Under the truth-in-sentencing system, violent offenders were targeted for longer terms of incarceration.

7

Truth-in-SentencingParole System

These figures present values of actual incarceration time served under parole laws (1988-1992) and expected time to be served under truth-in-sentencing provisions for cases sentenced FY2004 through FY2008. Time served values are represented by the median (the middle value, where half the time served values are higher and half are lower). Truth-in-sentencing data include only cases recommended for, and sentenced to, incarceration of more than six months.

Forcible Rape

Prison Time Served (in years)

Prior Violent Record

6.7

26.6

None Less Serious More Serious

6.7

22.2

5.6

10.6

Violent offenders, and particularly repeat violent offenders, are serving significantly longer under truth-in-sentencing.

8

These figures present values of actual incarceration time served under parole laws (1988-1992) and expected time to be served under truth-in-sentencing provisions for cases sentenced FY2004 through FY2008. Time served values are represented by the median (the middle value, where half the time served values are higher and half are lower). Truth-in-sentencing data include only cases recommended for, and sentenced to, incarceration of more than six months.

Sale of a Schedule I/II Drug

Prison Time Served (in years)

1.6

4.5

None Less Serious More Serious

1.5

3.1

1 .9

Truth-in-SentencingParole System

Prior Violent Record

Nonviolent offenders are serving about the same amount of time, on average, as they did prior to the abolition of

parole.

9

Recommended for Alternative

Not Recommended for Alternative

N=6,062

N=6,981

N=6,473

Risk Assessment for Nonviolent Offenders*

* Offenders recommended by the sentencing guidelines for prison or jail incarceration

10

Each year, roughly 3,000 low-risk drug, larceny, and fraud offenders are recommended for alternative sanctions.

Received an Alternative Sanction

Did Not Receive an Alternative

Sanction

* Sentencing guidelines recommendation is for incarceration with a midpoint of one year or more

Risk Assessment for Nonviolent Offenders(as applied to those recommended for PRISON incarceration)*

Recommended for Alternative

Not Recommended for Alternative

N=3,178(1,599)

(792) (807)

11

Half of the low-risk, prison-bound nonviolent offenders are sentenced to alternative sanctions.

12

Preliminary FY2013 Report Compliance Rates by Risk Level for Rape Offenders

(n=74*)

Very High Risk

High Risk

Moderate Risk 0%

27%

0%

No Level 20%

81%

53%

100%

51%

13%

7%

0%

---

6%

13%

0%

29%

16

15

2

41

Risk Level Mitigation AggravationNumber of CasesTraditional

Adjusted Range

94%

60%

100%

51%

Compliance

For sex offenders scoring above the specified threshold on risk assessment, the upper end of the guidelines range is

extended.

Preliminary FY2013 ReportCompliance Rates by Risk Level for Other Other Sexual Assault Offenders

(n=173*)

Very High Risk

High Risk

Moderate Risk 7%

11%

0%

No Level 11%

74%

56%

0%

59%

12%

33%

0%

---

7%

0%

0%

30%

42

18

0

113

Risk Level Mitigation

Compliance

AggravationNumber

of CasesTraditionalAdjusted

Range

86%

89%

0%

* Excludes Other Sexual Assault cases missing risk assessment and cases in which risk assessment is not applicable (e.g., child pornography and child solicitation offenses)

59%

For sex offenders scoring above the specified threshold on risk assessment, the upper end of the guidelines range is

extended.

13

The percent of violent felony offenders who were recidivists

declined during the first decade of truth-in-sentencing.

Sources: Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, A Decade of Truth-in-Sentencing, 2004 14

Percent of Violent Felony Offenders* with Violent Prior Records

* As defined in § 17.1-805

A larger share of expensive prison beds are occupied by violent felons.

Percent of State Prison Beds Holding Violent Felons*

15

* As defined in § 17.1-805

Violent index crimes are murder/non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault

United States

Change 1991-2010: - 47%

Virginia’s violent crime rate has declined since the early 1990s

and is now lower than any time since the early 1960s.

Violent Index Crime Rate in Virginia and the US

Virginia

Change 1991-2010: - 43%

Source: Virginia State Police Incident-Based Crime Reporting Repository System as analyzed by the Dept. of Criminal Justice Services Research Center (July 23, 2012) 16

Property index crimes are burglary, larceny and motor vehicle theft

United States

Change 1991-2010: - 43%

Virginia’s property crime rate has fallen since the early 1990s, reaching levels not seen since the late 1960s.

Property Index Crime Rate in Virginia and the US

Virginia

Change 1991-2010: - 45%

Source: Virginia State Police Incident-Based Crime Reporting Repository System as analyzed by the Dept. of Criminal Justice Services Research Center (July 23, 2012) 17

Virginia’s overall crime rate has dropped significantly, while its incarceration rate has increased by less than 9%.

18

Changes in Crime and Incarceration Ratesfor the 20 States with the Largest Drops in the Crime Rates

State

Change in Crime Rate

1995-2012

Change in Incarceration Rate

1995-2012

Hawaii -54.0% 25.8% Arizona -51.7% 23.3% Florida -51.1% 17.2% New Jersey -50.3% -23.2% Idaho -50.2% 76.3% New York -48.9% -27.0% Maryland -48.7% -10.9% Nevada -48.1% missing data Utah -47.5% 39.9% Oregon -47.1% 83.5% Connecticut -46.2% 4.7% California -45.4% -15.6% Illinois -45.1% missing data Colorado -44.5% 34.2% Michigan -42.4% 2.8% Wyoming -42.2% 30.2% Alaska -41.9% 18.3% Massachusetts -41.1% 13.7% Virginia -41.0% 8.9% Montana -40.5% 75.5%

Virginia’s prison population growth has slowed.

Prison Population Growth

19

Comparing states that calculate a three-year re-imprisonment rate, Virginia ranks second lowest.

Note: Missouri’s recidivism rate excludes the release of parole violators who have previously been returned to prison for a violation of supervision within the commitment.

Three-Year Re-Imprisonment Rate by State

Virginia

20

NCSCNational Center for State Courts

Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing:A Comparative Study in Three States

States with Sentencing Guidelines Systems

MN

MI

VA

21

Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing:A Comparative Study in Three States

MN MI VA

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

More voluntary More mandatory

OHWI MO

AL DC TN AR LA

DE UT VA

AK MA MD MI PA

OR KS WA MN NC

A Continuum of State Sentencing Guideline Systems

22

Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing:A Comparative Study in Three States

MN MI VA

Examining the practices in three states, the researchers asked three questions:

(1)Are actual sentences predictable using the prescribed elements and mechanics of guidelines systems?

(2)Do more serious offenders receive proportionally greater punishment as prescribed by guidelines?

(3)Are sentences under the aegis of guidelines fair in the sense of being non-discriminatory, thereby minimizing the effects of extra-legal elements, such as age, race, gender, and geographic location of offenders?

23

Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing:A Comparative Study in Three States

MN MI VA

Three criteria guided the evaluation:

(1)Do similarly situated offenders as defined by the guidelines receive similar sentences?

(2)Do the guidelines provide meaningful and proportional distinctions between more serious and less serious offenders?

(3)Is there discrimination in sentencing?

24

Findings

(1) Guidelines make sentences more predictable in

determining who goes to prison and for how long.

• Predictability in sentencing outcomes is correlated with location on the sentencing guidelines continuum.

• More mandatory the sentencing guidelines, more predictability.

Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing:A Comparative Study in Three States

MN MI VA

25

Findings (2) Guidelines effectively limit

undesirable sentencing disparity by reducing the role of factors that should not play a role in the sentencing decision.

• No evidence of a direct relationship between location on the continuum and undesirable racial, gender, age, or geographical disparities.

• Minnesota (more mandatory) and Virginia (more voluntary) show no substantively significant discrimination.

• Michigan (between Minnesota and Virginia) shows evidence of substantive discrimination.

Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing:A Comparative Study in Three States

MN MI VA

26

Findings

(3) Guidelines make sentencing patterns more transparent by clarifying the factors to be considered during sen-tencing and how the factors are to be scored in terms of their gravity.

(4) State officials have options when designing guidelines that allow policy makers to incorporate multiple design considerations about how best to shape judicial discretion.

(5) Active participation by a Sentencing Commission is an essential element of effective guidelines.

Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing:A Comparative Study in Three States

MN MI VA

27