Justice Reinvestment in Arkansas 3rd Presentation to the Legislative Criminal Justice Oversight Task Force March, 2016 Andy Barbee, Research Manager Jessica Gonzales, Senior Research Associate Ben Shelor, Policy Analyst Dan Altman, Program Associate
The Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center and the Jus6ce Reinvestment process Na6onal nonprofit, nonpar6san membership associa6on of state government officials Engages members of all three branches of state government Jus6ce Center provides prac6cal, nonpar6san advice informed by the best available evidence A data-driven approach to reduce correc1ons spending and reinvest savings in strategies that can decrease recidivism and increase public safety The Jus6ce Reinvestment Ini6a6ve is supported by funding from the U.S. Department of Jus6ce s Bureau of Jus+ce Assistance (BJA) and The Pew Charitable Trusts Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center 2
Takeaways from previous presenta6on Arkansas established the Sentencing Standards and the Sentencing Commission in with passage of Act 532. Among a variety of sentencing op6ons available to the courts, the key provisions of Act 532 were to achieve propor6onality in sentencing and reserve prison for the most serious offenses and repeat offenders. Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center 3
Takeaways from previous presenta6on Arkansas s sentencing grid doesn t offer sentence length ranges for prison sentences and has a high share of cells that allow for all sentencing op6ons. In policy, the grid does less than other states to guide the type of sentence used. In prac6ce, prison is used oten for less serious offenses or offenders. Despite the intent of the guidelines to reserve prison space for the most dangerous offenders, more than 1,000 people from non-prison cells were sent to ADC in 2014. Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center 4
Ques6ons for the Task Force 1. 2. 3. What share of the grid should allow for all sentencing op+ons? Should the guidelines have prison sentence ranges instead of a specific term to allow for considera6on of mi6ga6ng or aggrava6ng factors? Should there be a process for reviewing sentences in rela6on to the guidelinerecommended term? Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center 5
Kansas, North Carolina, and Alabama illustrate approaches to opera6onalizing ques6ons posed to Task Force ü Surrounding region Kansas () and North Carolina (14) each adopted their sentencing guidelines framework at a similar 6me to Arkansas (). Alabama did not adopt sentencing guidelines un6l 2006. ü Above states demonstrate different approaches to pu_ng teeth into guidelines. ü Recent history of addressing criminal jus6ce challenges Source: Arkansas Sentencing Commission; Kansas Sentencing Commission; North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission; and Alabama Sentencing Commission Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center 6
Arkansas has a high share of its grid that doesn t actually guide sentencing Percent of total grid cells that allow for all op6ons in sentencing: Arkansas: 40% North Carolina: 28% Kansas: 8% Non Drug Drug These all op6ons cells do not suggest any upper or lower boundary on the type of sentence imposed. Source: Arkansas Sentencing Commission; Kansas Sentencing Commission; and North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
Arkansas s sentencing grid prescribes a single length for prison terms instead of a range Offense Seriousness More serious offenses Less history Criminal History Score More history 0 1 2 3 4 5+ 10 360 384 432 528 660 80 240 312 36 480 600 20 8 120 168 264 360 432 600 42 54 84 120 160 300 6 24 42 66 108 156 240 Sentencing grids typically offer a sentence length range, taking into account that individual cases may have either mi6ga6ng or aggrava6ng circumstances. 5 36 54 2 120 180 Less serious offenses 4 18 30 54 2 6 3 18 30 42 60 2 18 24 42 1 24 30 Source: Arkansas Sentencing Commission Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center 8
Majority of states with guidelines use prison term ranges rather than singular recommended sentence length Kansas North Carolina Alabama SENTENCING RANGE NONDRUG OFFENSES Category A B C D E F G H I 3 + 2 1 Person & 1 3 + 2 1 2 + 1 Severity Level Person Person 1 Nonperson Person Nonperson Nonperson Nonperson Misdemeanor Misdemeanor Felonies Felonies Felonies Felony Felonies Felonies Felony No Record 653 618 285 26 246 226 203 186 165 I 620 586 22 253 234 214 15 16 155 52 554 258 240 221 203 184 166 14 43 460 216 200 184 168 154 8 123 II 46 438 205 10 14 160 146 1 442 416 14 181 165 152 8 123 10 24 228 10 100 2 83 1 61 III 233 216 102 4 88 2 66 5 221 206 6 8 82 4 68 61 55 12 162 5 6 64 5 52 48 43 IV 162 154 1 66 60 56 50 45 41 154 144 68 62 5 52 4 42 38 6 128 60 55 51 4 43 38 34 V 0 120 5 52 4 44 41 36 32 122 4 53 50 46 41 38 34 31 VI 46 41 38 36 32 2 26 21 1 43 3 36 34 30 2 24 20 18 40 3 34 32 28 25 22 1 1 34 31 2 26 23 1 1 14 VII 32 2 2 24 21 18 16 12 30 2 25 22 1 1 15 12 23 20 1 1 15 VIII 21 1 18 16 14 12 10 10 8 1 18 1 15 1 15 10 8 IX 16 14 12 12 10 8 6 15 8 6 5 X 12 10 8 12 10 8 6 6 6 10 8 6 5 5 5 Probation Terms are: 36 months recommended for felonies classified in Severity Levels 1-5 24 months recommended for felonies classified in Severity Levels 6- LEGEND 18 months (up to) for felonies classified in Severity Level 8 12 months (up to) for felonies classified in Severity Levels -10 Presumptive Probation Postrelease Supervision Terms are: Postrelease for felonies committed before 4/20/5 are: Border Box 36 months for felonies classified in Severity Levels 1-4 24 months for felonies classified in Severity Levels 1-6 24 months for felonies classified in Severity Levels 5-6 12 months for felonies classified in Severity Level -10 Presumptive Imprisonment 12 months for felonies classified in Severity Levels -10 KSG Desk Reference Manual 2014 Appendix E OFFENSE CLASS A B1 B2 C D E F G H I *** Effective for Offenses Committed on or after 10/1/ *** FELONY PUNISHMENT CHART PRIOR RECORD LEVEL I II III IV V VI 0-1 Pt 2-5 Pts 6- Pts 10- Pts 14-1 Pts 18+ Pts Death or Life Without Parole Defendant Under 18 at Time of Offense: Life With or Without Parole A A A A A A DISPOSITION Life Without Life Without Aggravated Range 240-300 26-345 31-3 365-456 Parole Parole 12-240 221-26 254-31 22-365 336-420 386-483 PRESUMPTIVE RANGE 144-12 166-221 10-254 21-22 252-336 20-386 Mitigated Range A A A A A A 15-16 180-225 20-258 238-2 23-342 314-33 125-15 144-180 165-20 10-238 21-23 251-314 4-125 108-144 124-165 143-10 164-21 18-251 A A A A A A 3 2 83-104 6-120 0-8 12-15 146-182 58-3 6-83 - 6 88-0 101-12 - 146 44-58 50-6 58-66 - 88 6-101 8 - A A A A A A 64-80 3-2 84-105 - 121 1-128 - 160 51-64 5-3 6-84 8-8 - 1 103-128 38-51 44-5 51-6 58-8 6-8 - 103 I/A I/A A A A A 25-31 2-36 33-41 38-48 44-55 50-63 20-25 23-2 26-33 30-38 35-44 40-50 15-20 1-23 20-26 23-30 26-35 30-40 I/A I/A I/A A A A 16-20 1-23 21-2 25-31 28-36 33-41 - 16 15-1 1-21 20-25 23-28 26-33 10 - - 15-1 15-20 1-23 20-26 I/A I/A I/A I/A A A - 16 14-18 1-21 1-24 22-2 25-31 10-12 - 14-1 15-1 1-22 20-25 8-10 - 12 10 - - 15-1 15-20 C/I/A I/A I/A I/A I/A A 6-8 8-10 10-12 - 14 15-1 20-25 5-6 6-8 8-10 - 12-15 16-20 4-5 4-6 6-8 - - 12 12-16 C C/I I I/A I/A I/A 6-8 6-8 6-8 8-10 - 10-12 4-6 4-6 5-6 6-8 - 8-10 3-4 3-4 4-5 4-6 5-6 - 8 A Active Punishment I Intermediate Punishment C Community Punishment Numbers shown are in months and represent the range of minimum sentences Revised: 0-0- 6 66 62 A 3-2 5-3 44-5 Score Low Mid High 181 45 8 0 Use of prison sentence ranges allows for considera6on of aggrava6ng or mi6ga6ng factors in individual sentences while maintaining compliance with the guidelines. Source: Kansas Sentencing Commission; North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission; and Alabama Sentencing Commission Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
States employ various means of limi6ng departures from the guidelines Arkansas Kansas North Carolina Alabama Is there a framework for appellate review in rela6on to the guidelines? No Yes Yes Yes What sort of mechanisms create framework for review? Not Applicable Guidelines provide a list of non-exclusive, case-specific factors to determine if departure reasoning is substan1al and compelling. Statute provides available presumpgve, aggravated, and miggated ranges based on circumstances. Effec1vely no departures allowed outside those ranges. Departures are allowed, but the judge must make a finding of miggagon or aggravagon and state this reason on the record if depargng from the presumpgve sentence. Source: Sentencing Guidelines Resource Center, Robina InsGtute of Criminal Law and Criminal JusGce, University of Minnesota: hnp://sentencing.umn.edu/ Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center 10
Even in states with guidelines, sentencing policy and prac6ce differs significantly Issue Arkansas Kansas Prison sentencing ranges? Percentage of all-op+ons cells Enforceable limits on departures? North Carolina Alabama No Yes Yes Yes 40% 8% 28% N/A No Yes Yes Yes Without a mechanism for reviewing sentences in rela6on to the sentencing standards grid, it will be very difficult to incorporate teeth into Arkansas s guidelines. Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
Ques6ons for the Task Force 1. 2. 3. What share of the grid should allow for all sentencing op+ons? Should the guidelines have prison sentence ranges instead of a specific term to allow for considera6on of mi6ga6ng or aggrava6ng factors? Should there be a process for reviewing sentences in rela6on to the guidelinerecommended term? Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center 12
Moving forward Ø Analysis of prison, proba+on, and parole data Impact of supervision failures on prison pressures Ability of supervision system to maximize public safety outcomes through policies and prac6ces that effec6vely promote recidivism reduc6on Ø Analysis of local jail pressures How does jail backlog impact ability to effec6vely sanc6on supervision violators in a swit and sure manner Ø Analysis of demographic trends Gender, race, age Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center
Proposed project 6meline Task Force Mee6ng 3 Task Force Mee6ng 1 Task Force Mee6ng 2 Task Force Mee6ng 4 Task Force Mee6ng 5 Task Force Mee6ng 6 Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Data Analysis Ini6al Analysis Detailed Data Analysis Impact Analysis Policymaker and Stakeholder Engagement Stakeholder Engagement and Policymaker Briefings Policy Op6on Development Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center 14
Thank You Ben Shelor, Policy Analyst bshelor@csg.org CSGJUSTICECENTER.ORG/SUBSCRIBE This material was prepared for the State of Arkansas. The presenta6on was developed by members of the Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center staff. Because presenta6ons are not subject to the same rigorous review process as other printed materials, the statements made reflect the views of the authors, and should not be considered the official posi6on of the Jus6ce Center, the members of the Council of State Governments, or the funding agency suppor6ng the work. Council of State Governments Jus6ce Center 15