JERSEYS NO EARLY RELEASE PROSECUTION SENTENCING CORRECTIONS AND VICTIM - PDF document

1 JERSEY'S "NO EARLY RELEASE PROSECUTION,
JERSEY'S "NO EARLY RELEASE PROSECUTION, SENTENCING, CORRECTIONS, AND VICTIM Principal Investigator: Rutgers University rutgers .edu 973 -353 Patrick McManimon, Release Act”. Review: the Mandatory Sentencing prosecutorial and judicial discretion Data and Methods New Jersey’s Prosecutorial and Sentencing Structure JERSEY'S "NO CORRECTIONS, AND Jersey's "No Early Release Act"(NERA) is states when Act of Sentencing" laws federal sentencing These laws require felons to serve a their sentences before The legislation board from releasing felons their sentences as imposed under the sentencing guidelines. federal law, offenders convicted sentencing, and the correctional system. Also, since, according legislative history, Sentencing" would better than the previous system offend

2 ers became eligible for parole after ter
ers became eligible for parole after terms and their prison terms have little impact either Jersey's justice satisfaction with sentences imposed. predicted that, within the felons sentenced would be higher rate the hope as a reward would be research confirmed the prosecutorial discretion Jersey's sentencing structure, the fact that the was written as to apply to who would very long prison terms homeostasis in the criminal system. Prosecutors did not guilty pleas to less crimes. However, roughly maintained the severity sentence imposed, NERA would higher percentage a lower sentence. expected time to be was not drastic. Projected will not the severity sentencing did significantly, the under the behave well could not already served the rate NERA-sentenced prison inmates versus sente

3 nced before NERA. Inmates sentenced und
nced before NERA. Inmates sentenced under to be violent infractions, expectations of future parole. they knew sentences were victims’ satisfaction the various justice happen under satisfaction with sentencing declined the law. This study interviews, surveys, quantitative analysis statistical databases. our questions the various questions. the cooperation Prosecutors’ Association, as well staff and group of Administrative Office exceptionally fortunate the Department of Corrections, full access provided an office and on them. things. People in those agencies do. to Gary Staff of the Jersey Department of Corrections, his remarkable professionalism thank Ron Suswein, Deputy the person knows more the practice than anybody us as the study design and administer a questionna

4 ire to prosecutors. Finally, Marilyn at
ire to prosecutors. Finally, Marilyn at the Administrative of the Courts provided a huge database describing court events in every serious felony prosecution in the entire state over period. Creating this database for us surely a and we appreciate it. the imperial “we” McCoy serving Principal Investigator and McManimon, Jr., who started a research this project as a way, he and insights he gained from this project to doctoral dissertation, this report. plural throughout this is not simply a convenient device. Rather, it reflects the fact that the report EARLY RELEASE Early Release which requires that offenders charged and convicted of violent crimes their sentences before June, 1997. As several “Truth in Sentencing” statutes passed in Jersey’s law is one

5 a broad pattern local legislative change
a broad pattern local legislative changes enacted It modifies Jersey’s Parole intended to change the practices of judges in setting sentences and parole granting parole. federal criminal system had embraced “truth in policy of requiring all felons serve at least 85% of any prison sentence imposed. When sentencing guidelines effect in 1987, prison sentence imposed carried a requirement that least 85% prescribed prison time served before parole could legislative debates and the text law involved accountability victims and of justice stated that victims felt cheated and hearing that offenders released far short prison sentences imposed. Furthermore, with near-elimination of the goal rehabilitation as a rationale for little need indeterminate prison terms based on offender&

6 #146;s capacity to overcome behavior. Fi
#146;s capacity to overcome behavior. Finally, proponents of “truth in sentencing” intended that 85% requirements sentencing, although in theory ideas did not have conflated. (Greene federal system originally instituted guidelines including served requirement with the Subsequently, the sentencing became development can be guidelines amendments that increased in several offense categories mandatory minima of five or drug dealing the federal Omnibus Crime Act “truth in sentencing” as felons serve their prison was extended to the states. Although federal legislation could not force this on state it could encourage them to pass legislation. Lacking a stick, the federal lawmakers offered state lawmakers: passed “Truth Sentencing” legislation, federal gov

7 ernment to build prison. Obviously, the
ernment to build prison. Obviously, the drafters of the the states laws would significantly increase the severity of existing laws prison. Already overcrowded prisons would burst. Population under Truth laws predicted that many more resources would necessary to accommodate the such a law. Acknowledging this problem, federal legislation a state Subtitle A Violent Crime Control Enforcement Act Early Release state Senate Its lone sponsor Majority Leader John County. The bill mere seventeen as a to the It required “that any inmate for a crime involving violence shall until the inmate has served the court-ordered required the Parole implement the Act. In Trenton, it was viewed sentencing bill. the Office Services staff conceived initially the parole some time, a sentencing law.

8 A Jersey’s lower house) Diane Allan
A Jersey’s lower house) Diane Allan and Carmine DeSopo. victims’ groups began to victim’s rights law. Bennett called a press conference the merits his proposed legislation. that press Karen Wengert Bill Thomas, the mother and grandfather Amanda Wengert young girl who stated their support did various of the a group dedicated to protecting children from becoming victims strong voice district, they are well known and influential members as the community. The Chair the Senate’s Law and Public Safety Committee, Senator the proposed legislation Senator Bennett for this legislation. Two years after the federal Crime Act, toward “truth in sentencing” had begun Senate Bill conducted on held during clearly signaling merger between “get tough crime”

9 policies and victim’s rights advoca
policies and victim’s rights advocates in New Jersey. confirm the this alliance. included the sponsors the legislation in both the legisIature, a past Attorney respected advocate “get tough crime legislation,” representatives the Fraternal Order Police, a Adult Treatment and Diagnostic Center Jersey’s Sex-Offender Prison), several representative from the Prosecutors’ Association, and several private citizens. also on record organizations and victims’ groups (both national and state groups). public hearing illustrates the influence of rights advocates and victims’ in the political process in their political power with members of the legislature. Both sponsors, Allan and Bennett, the Chair and Public Safety Committee, repeatedly recounted associat

10 ions with and said that the true purpose
ions with and said that the true purpose of the legislation alleviate the pain and his opening hope that this measure will victims and their families violent crime.” (Transcript Public Hearing: Assemblywomen Allan stated; victims” (p.3) goes beyond ‘truth in this bill We stand excuses.” (p.4). Senator SB855 tells the victims crimes that their loss their pain pain, that the violation human life, attacker accountable.” that this was conducted Crime Victims Rights However, Senator Bennett reference to the if New to receive the prison construction funds available fiom the this legislation be passed. hearing closed telling note. Chairman of a long range plan that years ago. having with are spending the on crime’ plan to include ‘truth senators each

11 their closing remarks that this is a cle
their closing remarks that this is a clear message from the citizens original wording of the changed. The Act follows: “This effect immediately, immediately, sentenced for a crime the first or second degree involving the bill. New Jersey warned against an escalating prison population the bill as amended department estimated underlined denotes the the legislation. the current statutes provisions, incurring enormous costs. that the bill’s additional costs not anticipated by the Department of Corrections. Further, the Corrections was “unable to quantify deterrent effect to the the bill received a favorable the committee first reading. the Assembly sponsors, Allan and received a letter General’s staff assembly draft. Citing unfinished work Governor’s Study o

12 n Parole, that the committee completed i
n Parole, that the committee completed it had “gathered much information and will making recommendations reform,” apparently a of work interesting about not the but the fact that it was viewed not as sentencing legislation nor even victims’ rights legislation, as parole executive and legislative branches of the Attorney General’s staff also several problems that affect later versions law most likely increase prison populations. This issue was then under litigation, as were forced a continuing executive order excess state inmates challenging this order (in effect for State Court. critique also included concerns about post-release inmates; the would have parole supervision when an with accumulated conduct credits he supervision. Finally, applying be clearly and

13 there in the term “crimes of viole
there in the term “crimes of violence.” about these issues either the General’s office. second reading of in the Public Safety later. There the reason length between the readings but the staff advised held until recommendations were from the the second reading, notes of interest appear. First, was removed. Act had sponsors, Senator (Chair of the Senate Law and and Senator Scott, a member of the faced tightly contested races bill in the Senate closely legislation as finally strong language that offenders covered mandatory release.” violence were defined. This been an important issue for that the populations drastically it applied the final limited as to eight offense categories. (Covered offenses included all homicide and sexual assault, kidnapping, carjacking

14 , aggravated assault, the offender used
, aggravated assault, the offender used to use a weapon.) This an important point governor’s staff, Jersey to experience over-inclusive sentencing with members Governor’s office California had its “three Strikes and You’re Law.”3 This that the the Parole but clearly sentencing law: mandatory sentencing. Interestingly, a search of newspapers the State did produce any coverage of legislation during this and the silent as well. became clear to both sentencing structure Jersey. Statutorily, bill required courts to sentence to terms target offense defined a crime of violence. Also, parole establish a those serving sentences for crimes committed law through a risk assessment instrument. Because this not apply constitutional prohibition of signed into included

15 in THE EFFECTS Legislation intended felo
in THE EFFECTS Legislation intended felons is course, and a rich of evaluation literature predicts the likely outcome legislative innovation Early Release Act” a form sentencing that unique because it eliminates discretion mostly at the Parole stage. (Under discretion about long the Three Strikes was very the effect and prison population County Jails backlogged because offenders refused fearing a life sentence. imprisonment will be; once it is the mandatory implementation of other laws indicates that judges exercise their discretion mandatory provisions. hand, implementation the law" and prisons seriously strained. mandatory miminum statute stands an example of what is to happen all components the criminal justice system attempt to fblfill requirements of mandatory sentenci

16 ng as closely as the earliest these laws
ng as closely as the earliest these laws, severe mandatory prison sentences offenses and included a prohibition bargaining. Evaluation demonstrated that arrests, indictment rates, and conviction rates all after the rates remained stable, trials drug cases and the doubled (Joint 1978). Clearly, courts that bore the this law. plea bargaining convinced prosecutors to forego felony indictment cases that could reasonably be reduced guilty pleas, all felonies to trial. facing mandatories trials, since they usually decided they had nothing trial, thus forcing the system exacting standard proof and significantly increasing rate. "Because the caused serious court congestion the legislature forced to for courts and prosecutors." (McCoy, the plea bargaining of offenders were indeed convict

17 ed and sentenced to imprisonment under i
ed and sentenced to imprisonment under it received longer sentences sentences remained very heavy. Early Release plea bargaining, but New York law may arise, because defendants avoid the 85% mandatories press for charge bargains crimes not covered under the new law. also increase those cases prosecuted under the law, since have more lose from a conviction. Michigan and Massachusetts implementing mandatory sentencing Jersey, because laws were as the Early Release" law i.e., that their discretion could a term imprisonment that they chose, but at that point a mandatory provision that a term must be served without possibility of parole. (Massachusetts) required a one year mandatory sentence without parole for offenders carrying unlicensed firearms. (1979) conducted impact and found s

18 ignificant increases in favorable outcom
ignificant increases in favorable outcomes for dismissals, acquittals, reduction charges) after to before, while appeal increased dramatically 94%). (Carlson, 1982:8) also strove maintain the "going rate" normal case processing, and they did convicting offenders of charges that carry the mandatory sentencing requirement. Felony Firearms Statute created a "possession of while engaged in a felony," specifying a year mandatory prison term that could served consecutively after imposed for the underlying felony. In Michigan, stepped in the going rate. the eligible offenders were charged with firearms charge, courts 100% cases requiring firearms charges while in others none of the firearms charge (Bynum, and Loftin tendency in early dismissals of charges the case. assaults were the ma

19 ndatory offenders to misdemeanor offense
ndatory offenders to misdemeanor offenses instead the two recent permutation of mandatory sentencing is "three you're out" in which felons convicted of three crimes states that adopted them; permit parole or "good time'' the life sentence, while others require parole. (Austin get cite) common theme prosecutors and judges regularly exercise their discretion laws only to those dangerous. Nevertheless, for that group of defendants, rates increase "three strikes" cases, since willingly plead guilty to a crime that will produce a mandatory life sentence. (Zimring, Hawkins, Kamin summarizes the research on gives the sentences without possibility not applied all eligible offenders: "The severity the part prosecutors to prosecute be out of the seriousness also points strive to circumvent

20 the of mandatory minima, to avoid the
the of mandatory minima, to avoid the penalties that the severity If the experiences prosecutors might also laws' impact avoid overload on the court system. similar response New Jersey, and we did. of laws abolishing parole on correctional management removes discretion from the in cases that judges percenters." The equivalent to Early Release Act" is federal Sentencing Reform Act of commonly called guidelines sentencing facets, the fact that virtually abolished parole is often overlooked. law abolished parole permitted an after serving of his had earned sufficient "good time" in prison. the federal guidelines experiment, however, has deeply contested results. Without guidelines themselves, it is sufficient to note that prison populations almost doubled took effect, and that has

21 not been reintroduced altered form. and
not been reintroduced altered form. and Carlson, occurred despite the fact that sentencing reform actually shortened average sentences for crimes, expecting the abolition of parole the normal sentences stayed about benefits of "truth take hold. The United States Sentencing and many have attributed the tremendous prison time served to mandatory minima requirements for drug and to the report titled "Mandatory Minimum the Federal Criminal Justice System" stated that laws shift fiom judges to prosecutors trial rates and lengthened processing time. also found mandatories (Tonry,1992:254). that study, not file carried mandatory even when the supported such filings, 2. declining to charge mandatory minima as an guilty pleas, plea bargaining, mandatories increased judges often less sev

22 ere than provisions would require Senten
ere than provisions would require Sentencing Commission, These pathologies could federal system's mandatory minima laws covering drug and system's virtual abolition of parole, fact remains, though, that federal system experienced prison admission and length of average sentences Sentencing Commission, already has mandatory minima laws covering gun and drug offenses, and when it new "Truth in Sentencing" nearly abolished for Class and many offenders. Unlike Congress, however, the legislature did adjust downward the prison terms as to account for the fact lengths expected served before of sentencing reform would be about the these indicators predict a significant has passed. commutation credits already crowded institutional management violations and the possibility of affects the q

23 uality little interest the "suffering" i
uality little interest the "suffering" inmates, there implications to system. Therefore, it is prison rule general and violent rule particular resulting from the requirement to of a lengthy prison term. Discipline prison presents unique problems, serious crimes are committed, they are difficult to prosecute a variety Hirsch and Parole boards in assisting institutional disciplinary records for granting The curtailment of parole violations among violent felons. associated with institutional among prisoners. Crowding is leading determinant inmate rule infractions. Population (McManimon, 1994) with violent rule "Reducing the crowding within reduce the (Walkey and Gilmore, crowded, incidents without weapons increased unabated (Gaes 1985) and was an assaults (without weapons) as well.

24 also a significant causal factor of pris
also a significant causal factor of prison riots Correctional Association, 1992; Dillingham, and Montgomery, 1985). that prison directly affected the use of mandatory of parole. the crowding Jersey prisons would not federal government give money build a the federal of new sentencing laws victims' satisfaction with sentencing sentencing'' is a relatively new of victim-oriented legislation. that victims will be satisfied with the sentences their assailants and thus, we hope, recover better from their victimizations if they assured that the offender for exactly the of time announces. Advocates of "truth sentencing'' laws that the victim's that the offender will not be quickly find the victim again, and the simple courtesy being told the system will and will not do, will increase vi

25 ctim satisfaction claim does necessarily
ctim satisfaction claim does necessarily rely on retributive reasoning for harsh sentences, although the effect of prison terms the intuition that is as a determinant of satisfaction as Well-established psychological research on court procedures Tyler (1988: was more with the criminal justice system substantive outcome. and Tyler (1986), and satisfied when they perceived court procedures were consistent over time these studies, victims expressed their satisfaction aspects of procedure "ethicality, honesty, and the effort to Surely the victims' emphasis on programs prevent "secondary recognition of the importance procedural fairness. participate in the public decisionmaking about reasoning holds, and that participation cannot allowed actually to even more. Research has demonstrat

26 ed that frustration with the criminal fr
ed that frustration with the criminal from a lack involvement and standing in than from injustice in 1988). Some laws can address this problem; victim impact statements and allocution at sentencing, for instance, explicitly acknowledge (Henderson, 1985: the healing process. Yet evaluation assistance programs that aim to involve the victim in court hearings satisfaction under these programs does not necessarily increase (Goldstein, 1982; Satisfaction levels probably vary depending the type efficiency, and a host factors having to with the from which the Generally, failing programs provide little participation beyond superficial level and are and prosecutors important (Kelly, 1984: can provide victim participation and regard the court and prosecutors higher satisfaction levels. Mor

27 eover, the between victim satisfaction a
eover, the between victim satisfaction and punitiveness by no In general, victims punitive than the general public (Boers 1990). Victims studies (Erez, 1989, 1990) rarely requested the court third requested incarceration, and only about third of the victims viewed harsher sentences to improve victim relations. the same colleague separated the punitiveness issue satisfaction and highly correlated the sentence, assertion that fair more important to than substantive outcome, found that criminal procedure, victims' overall justice system sentence imposed. that victims of crimes against persons were more sentencing outcome than were property offenses. Victims the disposition and believed the sentence was too dissatisfied regardless agents. (Erez These ambiguous previous research warr

28 ant study into of sentencing with the cr
ant study into of sentencing with the criminal justice certainly has manifest goal increasing victim as there connection between punitiveness latent goal increase significantly for violent offenders. To there has never been a study of sentencing conducted with testing the expected to increase victim satisfaction This study The research that emerge careful consideration Act" fall the same categories as did the overview innovations. Accordingly, and judicial correctional management, ease of presentation, each question in each of these categories description of and methods we used in This simply saves the reader the questions section the data list (Data sources Charging Practices prosecutors charge greater proportion offense levels not "violent offender'' definitions took effect? p

29 rosecutors statewide Charge Bargaining A
rosecutors statewide Charge Bargaining As part plea agreements, prosecutors agree under what * * observations at charging, plea prosecutors statewide Sentence Bargaining Research Question typical sentences agreed in plea agreements, and in accordance agreements, change maintain the “going rate” punishment that normal before the Release Act took effect? Interviews with prosecutors and observations concerning charging, practices. Survey statewide about Research Question impose on felons covered law change significantly after the Act took effect? Corrections Automated Information Management System (AIMS) database, covering all types offenses before after the new takes eflect statewide by a sample including data sentence lengths release dates written questionnaire Research

30 Question trial rates increase significa
Question trial rates increase significantly those offenses the act? Administrative Office data, before after the law takes trial rates Research Question and seriousness infractions inside correctional institutions increase significantly after the is this to inmates’ perceptions that their will have little influence on eventual parole release dates? If * * Information Management database, covering inmates' records before after the new law takes including data elements their dispositions Research Question Did victims' imposed on violent offenders increase short written survey their satisfaction with sentences imposed, in three representative counties. of results before Early Release was implemented versus after, effects of a new law state's criminal justice it is first essen

31 tial the type of prosecutorial and sente
tial the type of prosecutorial and sentencing structure that state employs. other states, New Jersey a unique for the prosecutors are supervised centrally the Attorney General's office and determinate guidelines Prosecutorial Practices Unlike other states prosecutors are to office, New Jersey's Governor appoints county prosecutors five-year terms.' prosecutors are vested with powers and duties as the state's attorney general,2 are an extension the attorney general's office. which dates from colonial times appointed the prosecutor for the colony In 1970 Jersey legislature combat organized crime.3 appointed by the governor, their practices the Attorney General. hereby declared be public policy of the State encourage cooperation enforcement officers and to provide for the general c

32 riminal justice enforcement officer of o
riminal justice enforcement officer of order to of a uniform and efficient enforcement of throughout the powers over county prosecutors to General shall with and advise the several prosecutors in matters the duties of their office and shall maintain a general supervision over prosecutors with a obtaining effective and of the criminal laws throughout the periodic evaluations of each Criminal Justice Act of 1970 is an important component of the plays a critical role in its implementation research that demonstrates a likelihood that prosecutors of mandatory maintain the "going rate'' (Rossman, 1979; Bynum, Turner, et 1995) and that application likely to policies and practices prosecutors, (Eisenstein, Fleming McCoy 1993) prosecutors Jersey do have such discretionary 2A: 158-5. supe

33 rvisory power, the Attorney General issu
rvisory power, the Attorney General issued a "Directive for on April directive recognizes that the overwhelming majority criminal convictions the State result negotiated agreements the prosecutor and the defense, rather than pursuant to a trial. directive attempts balance the criminal cases with the expressed intent of legislature and that "violent offenders" serve a sentence of the term imposed the court. In that spirit, the directive instructs the that the plea presented to the court reflects the seriousness behavior and does not the purpose of outlines the process that prosecutors must at each step that goal. summarized below and the text of is available Release Act" to respond to crime victims and therefore victims' input into the decision process is highlighted directive. Vi

34 ctims' interests and the benefit of a tr
ctims' interests and the benefit of a trial are explicitly the state's "Victims' Bill and prosecutors were directed to include consultation at various stages of the criminal process. Another statute effect at the time that Release Act Act," requiring a mandatory prison term applied to any person the commission a felony. The following is a review the directive county prosecutors enforcing the Early Release Act, Attorney General Release Act, Pre-Indictment Dispositions. Prosecutors are traditionally afforded selecting and charges, especially at this stage of criminal process before a grand has even most important factor noted under guidelines at the factual proofs that would be available for a trial. strength of the evidence the possibility acquittal remain the most significant fa

35 ctors. However, interests of victim and
ctors. However, interests of victim and prosecutors are to consult with and take victim in determining whether to seek downgrade (i.e. the severity the original each victim opportunity to write impact statement any proposed pre-indictment disposition. Any decision dismiss a charge be reported to the County and if Early Release the prosecutor state that writing and that it dismissed in accordance with General's policy directive. Early Release a preponderance the offender use a deadly weapon or caused serious bodily victim to eligible for the provisions of the arraignment hearing (pre-indictment stage,) prosecutors must notify the defendant offenders eligibility for the prosecutor required to notify defendant that he/she subject to a release (previously parole) as Prosecutors are i

36 nstructed to either this process through
nstructed to either this process through use of a plea in open through the expressed provision of the to the defendant. This change with the expressed intent of addition to pre-indictment stage. Post-Indictment CharPes. prosecutors are dismissing or downgrading a charge subject to Early Release Act” unless there insufficient evidence to a conviction or imposition of the enhanced penalty, such an agreement assistance and cooperation other prosecutions. Although prosecutorial the above the directive severely limits latitude prosecutors had in Early Release Act. If a plea agreement at or before the hearing which the plea will be made, the assistant prosecutor handling the writing that offense facts the case subject to Early Release Act. Significantly, the directive specificall

37 y says “the county shall have no au
y says “the county shall have no authority waive imposition sentence required Thus, although prosecutors their discretion to plea bargain and agree to negotiated plea settlements to the case, they have it, and they disregard the operation of the aware of all facts of the case the fact prosecutorial discretion” in which judicial discretion still other mandatory sentencing which the limited as to in dismissing or reducing charges court. (In short, did not promulgate a Truth-in-Sentencing operate like laws do.) Prosecutorial discretion not restricted established sentence Title 2C (New Jersey of Criminal Justice) for the Act. Early Release Act did not alter sentences, prosecutors remain agree to sentences the established statutory provisions. provisions of the must serve o

38 f whatever imposes if the crime is one c
f whatever imposes if the crime is one covered established sentencing provisions are New Jersey’s sentencing subsection J of General’s directive state’s sentencing further considered. directive states unambiguously that any case where the statute applies, the court ‘shall a minimum which the defendant shall be eligible for total prison imposed under the sentencing guidelines, including years added due to aggravating factors (an “extended term”) prison terms using a of a crime of second degree to sentenced for an offense below that of requires.* Under circumstances, prosecutors are agreeing to apply the usual sentencing structure mandated to also to the reduced sentence. In a member of the Attorney confirmed that listed above (Negotiated Dismissal an

39 d Downgrading Jersey retained of sentenc
d Downgrading Jersey retained of sentence prosecutors and sentencing judge a particular term of years under the established sentencing guidelines, attaching to any sentence Early Release does not require that offenses covered the Act be sentenced to a prison custodial term. the offenses carry a statutory imprisonment under but only where circumstances and where a court explicitly imprisonment would a serious injustice, injustice overrides the Prosecutors are told not except under circumstances, which would be reviewed Early Release as soon after as possible Finally, the Attorney General's directive addresses prosecutors with questions regarding the implementation Release Act” directive to address inquiries to the Director Justice, a position established in the Criminal Just

40 ice Act The Sentencinp New Jersey’s
ice Act The Sentencinp New Jersey’s sentencing structure is a hybrid determinate model. By we mean that indeterminate, but nevertheless does retain ranges of possible prison terms ranges are narrow to traditional indeterminate sentences, which often range probation to decades for a Jersey law, a typical range of terms permissible sentencing a violent first-degree felony would be second degree felony years. Judges have to sentence within that range, relying mitigating factors sentencing structure “hybrid” because not entirely indeterminate, yet it retains some judicial discretion to sentence from among a range prison terms, and it mandatory sentencing requirements years mandatory prison time for use gun, for instance.) sentencing structure is not guidelines sentenci

41 ng that term usually understood, a grid
ng that term usually understood, a grid that first takes the severity crime and the record, and other case offender characteristics. It is to criminal from outside the state when New court professionals refer this system as “guidelines” and often to believe it resembles guidelines grid Minnesota’s or federal system’s. no appeal feature and judicial departures outside the guidelines range not be writing. Probably, that most closely resembles it Determinate Sentencing professional workplace, must work daily. References "mandatory terms," "extended terms", "reduced terms", and "presumptive sentences'' are common. "Ordinary terms" specify the range of statutes. Sentence length on the category Degree Crimes, Degree Crimes, Degree Crimes, of imprisonment for murder

42 is First degree crimes have ordinary te
is First degree crimes have ordinary term years and years, second degree degree offenses are sentenced to terms ranging between Fourth degree offenses receive term not terms are sentenced to less than time to offender will the judge presumed to start about the midpoint the "ordinary sentencing" sets forth the sentence to be the preponderance of the aggravating and mitigating factors weighs a higher of imprisonment. the presumptive the ranges proscribed for sentences" are terms affixed that cannot exceed mandatory term offender is eligible for are required serve the entire mandatory sentence without benefit law requires mandatory prison sentences for such as drug dealers. serious aggravating factor has been proven. specific situations including the following: Persistent offender

43 s are older, convicted two different off
s are older, convicted two different offenses. Professional criminal is a committed the at least additional persons, and devotes a major source of livelihood. Instant offense must a crime third degree. commits a crime for some pecuniary proceeds of the offense(s). Instant offense must a crime of the first, Second offender a firearm. Offender committed a hate crime. Extended terms generally double the sentencing ordinary terms. terms" take two forms. First, mitigating factors factors, the court the offender including not affixing Second, "in the convictions for crimes second degree where the court is clearly convinced the mitigating factors substantially outweigh the aggravating factors, demands, the court sentence the appropriate to a crime one lower than that the crime for he w

44 as the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justi
as the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice terms" for extended sentences. statutes provides crimes of kidnapping, or sexual assault, for an term" is the maximum allowable, life For crimes the first degree, other than the more than the traditional the sentence for extended or the midpoint applied presumptive sentences. For the third and fourth the presumptive sentence, similar the presumptive for ordinary following example illustrates guidelines sentencing law works, and the discretion permitted offender is a second degree offense. term" has a term is years. The eligible for parole after serving sentences imposed, Or, because it of the second degree, the may sentence reduced term to an offense the third presumptive term of In that event, court did sentence, the offender for parole

45 release at the aggravating factors outw
release at the aggravating factors outweigh mitigating factors, the impose an "extended of imprisonment. presumptive term as to total an alternative, affixing a "mandatory term" the extended term would serve a maximum prison sentence of years before mandatory term the offender eligible for parole the extended years and there are combination of options available to the judge within extremes illustrated this example. New Jersey's sentencing structure includes the discretion Parole Board. states, an inmate after serving addition, there time credits the Department of Corrections. Credits reduce an offender’s sentence day for every five days in work status. However, to minimum status, the inmate earns an additional year, and five days per for the second and subsequent years. aw

46 arded to assigned prison administrative
arded to assigned prison administrative actions reduce sentences 21 days per The median sentence reduction month. These administrative actions in addition to statutory parole eligibility requirements serve 33% the imposed before parole eligibility. Using the example offender convicted of robbery, sentence served ordinary terms could be little as 1 year for a seven sentence. For the offender could serve as little longer percentages their sentences than published figures for the mean violent offenders New Jersey this statutory background that Jersey Legislature enacted the provisions Early Release violent offenders generally served almost half of the prison sentences imposed prior to passage the law, representing an additional 35% prison time served. outlined previously, New has a

47 unique structure relating prosecutors.
unique structure relating prosecutors. Unlike in the Jersey's Attorney General a supervisory role over a result, to seek approval from conduct the developed (attached as addressing prosecutorial practices for offenses targeted Early Release provisions for and after the effective date the law. General's office subsequently discussed at Prosecutors' Association results of discussion were that prosecutors were free to refrain from There were changes made to the Individual county prosecutors and their assistant prosecutors were then free refrain from participation Although this has its the survey of their supervisory office to sending it with a Chief a suburban-urban county, were made before mailed out to every in the state. of the Office the Attorney sent a separate letter each pro

48 secutor's office telling them that the s
secutor's office telling them that the survey Division had approved it, and mailing was arranged individual counties could individual confidentiality a combination regarding the practices at the pre-indictment sentencing stage the process. prosecutors were have their trial and attorneys complete questionnaires and return to the self-addressed stamped envelopes provided. closed-end questions were constructed linear scale practices for all offenses prior after the effective questionnaires were out during time period that encompassed prosecution of violent offenses subject to and those not subject committed prior sufficiently close to the pre-NERA period Jersey has counties consisting of urban, suburban, response rate all counties least one prosecutor from had returned a survey of

49 responses was provided more one response
responses was provided more one response analyses were descriptive. Prosecutors indicated on a 4-point Likert frequency with which certain prosecutorial process. (For instance, is it that you a felony in violent offense categories pre-indictment? Never Frequencies of these responses each category to the likelihood changing charges pre-indictment, the likelihood and sentencing bargaining for offenses both covered and not covered Act, and test whether before and after the the various stages of paired sample employed This the most appropriate because it the null that the variables (pre practices) are equal, and a quasi-experiment the same subject (prosecutor's office) before and further explore that were most important to prosecutors how to stages of the judicial process, open-ende

50 d questions provided the respondents an
d questions provided the respondents an opportunity explain their decisions. are also the Data Analysis section below. Finally, we conducted interviews with after we called them. Because this was not sample, we have whether the responses were representative of prosecutorial practices statewide. explanations from prosecutors requirements of Early Release Act," including of application of in plea changes noted in the data analysis. Prosecutors who agreed interviewed were extremely candid and process, and General directive to explaining how survey data. Sentencing Practices Before After Passage hypothesis was that prosecutors would maintain the "going questions posed were designed to first research question posed charge a not covered Charging practices within prosecutors' offices w

51 ere examined using both results are pres
ere examined using both results are presented counties and the State practice to change Release Act" originally booked before presenting a case frequencies and and individual is the changing charges Release Act" before presentation results presented indicate that the prosecutors to charges originally booked before presentation Jury is rare. Only indicated that it was change charges. we asked prosecutors to question when thinking particular offenses, the picture changed indicating that, reduced than offenses. Also, the research question stated above examines the prosecutors for violent offenses covered and offenses the Act, after the effective hypothesis was that charging a greater NERA (No Early Release Act) offenses at Tests were violent offenses hypothesis. This procedure tes

52 ts that the data are a sample from a pop
ts that the data are a sample from a population the means are equal. Prosecutors how likely they were to change the charges initially before presenting the case Jury, both prior to and after the implementation of Early Release following offenses covered the Act: Aggravated Manslaughter, Kidnapping, Aggravated Sexual contains a of the paired-samples test for After the the T not completed because difference in to the enactment Early Release Act -denotes the was not completed because Test: Likelihood Offenses Before and After the Table 2 the difference in the for all and the tailed t test significance for the paired samples. that showed difference in the between practices before and after the implementation county, County did not respond the question practices prior test could fo

53 r that county. Negative (diff. means) in
r that county. Negative (diff. means) indicates that charges were be reduced the Act. Positive values reflect greater likelihood reduced charges the law’s data indicate that general charge reduction and dismissal pre-indictment about the same both effect. There some small dismissals after that there were fewer dismissals others. These fluctuations were not statistically significant in offense categories. a significant difference reported sexual assault cases. In all reporting, the values of was negative, indicating that reduction was more the law’s effective date. Charging practices for aggravated manslaughter and manslaughter the least affected “paired samples t test” for the hypothesis that likely to change charging practices to maintain “going rate

54 48; could not fact, Sexual four of count
48; could not fact, Sexual four of counties (Counties indicates that in those counties prosecutors had more likely reduce charges preindictment before the Act went into effect. These counties of urban, suburban Therefore, the null could not rejected depending on the county. the prosecutors Attorney General’s stringently at stage for violent survey questionnaire also the prosecutors the importance of various factors that might influence decision to reduce charges originally booked before presenting both before and after the enactment of the “No Early idea that the Attorney General’s directive (victims’ wishes, etc.) were the factors that most prosecutorial decisions, compared to other ideas. for rankings on the important of the following factors: a weapon, vict

55 im vulnerability, physical injury, prior
im vulnerability, physical injury, prior record, and offender’s refusal prosecutor’s first offer to settle the case. important factor a weapon. All respondents reported this be ‘‘somewhat important” to “important” their determination (Average mean for all counties 2.9). Physical Injury also an important factor was the vulnerability of factors having little importance and refusal prosecutor’s first and prior record the offender somewhat important charges initially these factors decisionmaking prior determine any significant differences between reported prior and after NERA are reported 3.A. Paired Test: Differences Factors related Offenses presented to and After did not respond about the enactment Act” therefore, Table 3.B. Paired Sam

56 ples T Test: related to Charging Offense
ples T Test: related to Charging Offenses presented Grand Jury, Before and After T Test was The results of the paired samples t indicate there was no significant changes the weight of these factors influencing the charging practices changes were in the direction because the was to offenders convicted violent offenses. Use several counties not reducing charges originally booked, which would the law’s intent, reason there was not more of a change is use of weapons strongest factor in determining charging to passage it would to change opened-ended question regarding other factors that affected decisions to charges originally booked prior to presentation to the basic elements of the of conviction, quality of the evidence, and victims to Further, prosecutors were asked; “Si

57 nce the enactment Early Release use of a
nce the enactment Early Release use of any of the factors listed above (use etc) changed? how?” Several interesting responses addressed the law’s system. First, prosecutors because of requirement, offenders were less accept pleas for as to ensure a strong case for conviction, because offenders less likely to for a offense. Second, spite of that refusal of first offer for a negotiated disposition not statistically significant in analysis, prosecutors did state that an offer at pre-indictment stage further consideration stages of the process. Finally, there NERA cases greater depth before Act” did have on the processing of become internally more controlled, rather in the answers question related charging practice for the Act; charging practices? If procedural change

58 s processing time issues, caseload speed
s processing time issues, caseload speedy disposition as well as strict scrutiny of and provability key changes. Also major finding will be prosecutors said end of to expedite disposition. This likely is to the minimum sentencing the Act. observed in about average explained why dire predictions about offenders refusing to plead in practice: offenders still received their guilty even though the served lengthened. Finally, case screening for covered offenses intensified. Those cases that may not be charged Act at whereas before they would be charged and the evidence was not shown to enough. This is a processing issue related anticipated reluctance of offenders to a covered that they minimum sentence, an illustration can move from “inflated” charging system of prosecutors

59 predict can probably proven beyond reaso
predict can probably proven beyond reasonable doubt The processing time caseload issues are clearly a concern Early Release Act” not include additional funding for left to implement the law’s provisions with level of As previous indicates, the workgroups will strive to a workload consistent their resources. this would to adjust legislation and spend covered. Therefore, practices for offenses how likely initially booked them to the effective to maintain the current prosecutors were likely to their charging practices for those analyses Likelihood of Changing Offenses Before Law’s Implementation, respond for not possible. T Test was not completed because there Changing Charges and After the means. of the paired samples t test indicate virtually no practices for of

60 fenses not covered prosecutors alter the
fenses not covered prosecutors alter their practices and the negative values the difference indicates that prosecutors change charges after This finding is in the opposite direction of the hypothesis. clearly does not permit the rejection null and conclude that, based responses, there were changes in the charging practices for offenses conclusions were because the principle hydraulic discretion change in analysis for cases covered changes in offenses covered the Act have been sufficient a higher level of proof be used cases with ambiguous proof even charged at save the time and jury and them due to evidentiary ended questions were again of the prosecutors that were charging practices, Consistent with for NERA offenses, prosecutors listed strength of the evidence, likelihood of c

61 onviction, procedural factors. offenses
onviction, procedural factors. offenses not several other issues important to changes in charges the Grand These factors the defendant and the victim. Victim interest, willingness to cooperate, request victim to reduce charges to (misdemeanor offense) victim’s culpability offender’s willingness for treatment make restitution Note especially here these factors into account the prosecutorial guidelines on NERA factor that could influence decisions post-indictment would ecause the Early Release was touted as a Rights piece of legislation, the Attorney General’s guidelines echoed, the survey also asked the prosecutors “how the victim’s feelings policies for offenses covered by the Early Release Act’?” Prosecutors reported that in their charge reduct

62 ion practices were important. the respon
ion practices were important. the respondents following frequency chart: very important. a bit surprising that the frequencies were not higher for the categories “important” and “very important,” considering the victims’ rights legislation, nevertheless prosecutors did say give substantial weight to of the victims. But interesting to ponder the rhetorical direction of such legislation. Although legislators who passed the law victims with harshest sentences possible, prosecutors victims’ interests saw them as a factor in reducing charge severity wished it. Finally, prosecutors seemed more concerned with search possible suppression issues after law. The apparent inconsistencies may be the fact that cases can be reduced to municipal cases. Prosecutoria

63 l discretion exercised in charging pract
l discretion exercised in charging practices sum, the prosecutors were not likely to make changes to reducing or pre-indictment, either offenses covered effective date. However, they were more careful charge initially a level that the evidence General guidelines cases were followed regarding charging, which had the effect tightening evidentiary scrutiny. offer this interpretation a caveat because data on it is based the prosecutors themselves a survey. Possibly, the prosecutors research as scrutiny associated with the of Criminal Justice, and their supervisors wanted to hear. test this remarkable uniformity answers and compliance with the whether it shows that the Attorney General’s directive and supervision or whether to tell their bosses even if their actions were differe

64 nt.” did supplement the written sur
nt.” did supplement the written surveys with personal interviews several prosecutors counties, however, and expected might not face-to-face interviews. discussed charging pre-indictment, the factors involved determining whether the crime fell under conditions under which charges reduced (“downgraded”) dismissed, and sentence bargaining. interview answers the survey matter related prosecutorial practices that before the offense fell under how would the court attach the provision? Conceivably, could simply law, and case could sentenced under previous research indicates, prosecutors wide discretion application of unanimous agreement on fact that prosecutors have within their power to prosecute these cases all four counties said that there were office guidelines eligib

65 ility initially, but none indicated that
ility initially, but none indicated that an that fell not be “pushed” eligibility, they said, the would determine that the in the offense categories covered NERA. (Here made, reduced, dismissed, etc. over the state Administrative the Courts and are reported the charge bargaining non-NERA offenses would occur.) Notification of then usually given at the pre-indictment stage of the process. written in all felony the stipulation that plea offer and the application. If made, a notification conviction and openly stated court at -indictment practices counties. Prosecutors who sufficient evidence to would not change their applicability. However, plea offers the NERA eligibility from the sentencing contained in the original plea offer. that point if the defendant plead to a non

66 -85% sentence. This might violate the th
-85% sentence. This might violate the the law, it seemed, because the plea that NERA covered. Counties differed in typical this stage of case processing. county notified agree to allow the argue its appropriateness negotiated agreement. Judges impose either to sentence under previous law. This violate the spirit, if not the intent, of the use discretion of the law, but in compliance with the Sentence Barpaining final research examines the actual sentencing practices recommendations made court following by the Act and those not sentencing recommendations expected and this hypothesis is supported changes in sentence bargaining because directive provided some “wiggle to strain towards maintaining homeostasis Prosecutors retained sentencing recommendations be presented court. P

67 rior the typical sentencing expectation
rior the typical sentencing expectation that a felon the prison term imposed. After, the expectation reducing the usual recommendation to a lower end the presumptive range, and then computing the prison term, prosecutors could give offenders incentive to plead guilty and accept the sentencing change. a paired samples t test conducted and the results Recommending a a Guilty the Following Offenses Before and After respond about prior the enactment Release Act” Exchange for Following Offenses Before denotes the Test was not completed because there was results reported in table in most recommendations were likely after took effect. Furthermore, there counties. Prosecutors in counties likely to for guilty before the enactment Release Act.” legislative intent Attorney Gene

68 ral regarding the law. Although the diff
ral regarding the law. Although the differences were not statistically had substantial differences the direction opposite had a significant difference the offense Manslaughter after the law took likely that adhered to the to the letter for this serious offense the Act, but the for strict compliance County H’s policies regarding reduced sentence recommendations in exchange for guilty significant change. Aggravated Assault, Kidnapping, Aggravated Sexual Sexual Assault, and Carjacking had changes county said sentences after the took effect. Also, burglary and zone drug offenses, likely to reduced sentence recommendations the implementation This is possibly to the for this urban a constant workload. also had significant differences in the reduction for school zone a large subur

69 ban and it is likely a result statistica
ban and it is likely a result statistically significant changes in sentence six of the eight offense categories. Aggravated Assault Sexual Assault not statistically significant, but the changes (more likely occur after the implementation). These results that reduced sentence increase after the enactment county analyses varied, the overall results supported the hypothesis. how victims’ feelings sentencing stage charge bargaining stage were at issue this research. about the degree influence that victims’ feelings on the decision to exchange for a guilty plea. Prosecutors were asked to rank various factors decision to a sentence a guilty victims’ input the factors. considering the fact that the legislative intent was to increase sentence severity in the victims’

70 needs. prosecutors reported were consid
needs. prosecutors reported were considered very carefully as influential factor to recommend reduced sentences exchange for guilty pleas to If the these surveys bargaining did not increase as a way to maintain a “going rate” under this does the system wholesale as written. Instead, prosecutors their discretion in arranging sentence bargains that then approve. under the and under the Attorney General’s directive to agree lower prison terms understanding that once requirement attached under law, the total prison longer than under the previous law. indeed what occurred, according statistical data collected from the Admissions Data Bases for calendar years 1998 and 1999 (January through June) for offenses eligible for sentencing under likely that disproportionately s

71 entenced under previous statutes because
entenced under previous statutes because many pre-NERA concluded then. The “No Early Release Act” into effect in July, 1997, and delays 12 months reaching disposition these very serious not unusual.) For 1999, the case distribution reflect the full effects of Early Release contains the sentences for eligible offenses 1998 and cases for both offenses sentenced under previous statutes and statute, and the presumptive sentences for each offense category. Admissions to New Sentencing Requirements For Each data indicate that offenders sentenced under the received a than those sentenced under existing statutes, with the exception aggravated assault. These data support the hypothesis that prosecutors maintain the “going rate.” However, the data also demonstrated tha

72 t sentences for these violent Sexual As
t sentences for these violent Sexual Assault offenses were below the presumptive all cases NERA aggravated Ordinary Term (1 80) (1 80) keep in that for length does appear to increased significantly as of the sentence (under Jersey Good “max” out after completion of average term the maximum sentence for offenders sentenced previously existing statutes. Table Again, only offenders sentenced under previous statutes for aggravated manslaughter, sentences above presumptive sentences for each category of Assault in at a higher level than aggravated assault cases. [in months) These data indicate prosecutors, judges, defenders agreed in typical cases presumptive range, the understanding that would apply. been normal before passage the NERA, but not adding the comparing the da

73 ta on sentence length between years, the
ta on sentence length between years, there interesting trend the “going rate” hypothesis. contains data comparing the sentence length for sentenced offenders. With the exception manslaughter and a mild increase in manslaughter sentences, all other a decrease mean sentence length from 1998 indicates that more knowledgeable about the effects of how expecatations for guilty plea and the “going rate” could maintained, at least to violent felons served approximately prison terms before the sentencing stayed the time without these sentences the previous norm. Sexual Assault Sexual Assault Years 1998 and 1999 And Differences Ordinary Term Mean Sent. N Mean N 140 69 77 -7 3 480 Inferences from the data that prosecutors aware that the requirement equates with longer p

74 eriods sentenced offenses and therefore,
eriods sentenced offenses and therefore, they strive maintain the previous going rate although requires that sentences below the from the mitigating factors of the offense significantly outweighing aggravating factors. Prosecutorial discretion apparent conflict. Also, certainly, the fact that attorneys have their clients that they will receive a lowered sentence in return for a guilty plea play here. practice of at the lowest end the sentencing range in return a guilty plea to 85%-carrying offense trial rates did not increase significantly after These findings are consistent with the assumption that the system will maintain a that requires drastic changes, assumption that county prosecutors Jersey follow the directives and prosecutorial set out their supervisors the state Attorn

75 ey General’s office. permitted this
ey General’s office. permitted this sentence bargain. Interviews in four counties further explained the survey and statistical interview might not the state, of course. perceive themselves to be most clearly in compliance with the Attorney General’s directive and willing to demonstrate it. But the interviews did clear up some nagging quantitative data. In interviews in we asked prosecutors to explain sentence bargaining under prosecutors admitted that sentencing the lower end the presumptive range was practical issue negotiation and that it had provision significantly the actual prison sentence. Defendants were aware of this. a plea bargain, prosecutors they had offer something the guilty plea. that they conviction on a violent offense and a lower term Lower terms, the

76 presumptive sentence, were accomplished
presumptive sentence, were accomplished in to a term established range for the offense. Second, a person a crime be sentenced degree lower, the interest served; the Attorney General guidelines reiterated this use plead to a first degree crime, but sentenced to a second offense at the presumptive range. This allowed to concentrate those offenses that be tried, and not the system. offers for likely to be lower in for cooperation occurred most a conviction the proofs were prosecutors were less consider this were free to of imprisonment outside boundaries of if they felt the the offense did Early Release actual sentencing the judge the law does allow judges find that the sentence should Although the intent of the legislation, the Attorney Generalk guidelines, and the the questionnai

77 res all that there for interpretation ap
res all that there for interpretation application of the Early Release prosecutors are exercising charging and sentencing less likely to reduce or cases pre-indictment the cases are likely to charge as a violent felony all unless also willing agree to which the requirements will potential severity of than before the law went a substantial of cases, out of category altogether one severity justice." This is scarcely a finding, given guilty plea discussions, and it consistent with a court system processes cases when a sum, the of the Act” on prosecutorial discretion which is surprising since the written to address it. the discretion on sentencing outcomes, however, significant. Overall all offenses the legislation said they intended, well-established patterns and not much as t

78 he that could possibly been felt was blu
he that could possibly been felt was blunted discretion that was guidelines and central supervision account “going rates” the evidentiary individual cases. rarely passed taking thorough examination probable impact agencies responsible to implement The management correctional agencies is affected by most, criminal sentencing enhancement Act, two interconnected issues posed potential problems Corrections: increased prison populations violent infractions. almost a quarter Jersey Department Corrections labored an executive order declaring a state prison population. order mandated that county would house excess state inmate population. numbers grew Corrections Population ruled that been in state to remove state inmates from the county. further exacerbated the concerns over

79 population control and Early Release New
population control and Early Release New Jersey Department Corrections (1996) an analysis effects of the Early Release Act prison population. Table 9 a comparison of prison increases under the existing and under the No Release Act. These estimates are for period beginning Department of Corrections estimated that the impact of the would be take account of longer terms for same number Corrections completed a fiscal analysis estimated that the capital costs would be in operating costs total cost of the This represents an annual mean increase of These figures were on the cost of operating security facilities the offenses covered violent offenses. inmates sentenced for offenses are classified to maximum security initially under above costs are prohibitive, especially of fiscal restra

80 int. legislation passed provided for for
int. legislation passed provided for for additional prison space states that pass a Truth in Sentencing requirements. However, examination of the federal budet under grants) produced such funding the State the Department 996- 1999) state officials information, either, since of any funds being sent from the federal government under importance of on added above figures. inmates sentenced Early Release Act, with no hope of parole, more likely to incur disciplinary infractions, security facilities be needed. shown, then the reduced significantly. study took advantage of fact that the implementation the law the violent offender treatment group consists of violent inmates sentenced under the provisions of violent offender control of inmates of inmates these matters is found during 199

81 8 offenders who did not minimum attached
8 offenders who did not minimum attached. second control group was offenders (those sentenced for crimes covered by samples were from the Department Corrections inmate computer system This database admitted inmates including the sentencing data. group (NERA sentenced inmates) The violent offender control group, selected using a stratified sample selection technique totaled 152. These inmates were offense type race, county of and age. non-violent control group also selected from admissions period using a stratified sample to approximate within the Department of Corrections. That sub-sample consisted total sample of 488 were male inmates, because there not a sufficient female inmates sentenced under NERA The year 1998 was problems of temporal order. First, the temporal rule violati

82 ons general, and rule violations specifi
ons general, and rule violations specifically, suggest pattern is function of time: the one stays prison the more likely it is receive a violation report. (Ellis, et al., 1974) (1997) suggest that previous research cross sectional research controlling for an inmate is admitted to the previous studies have arbitrarily set their observation period these studies be in year but incarcerated for longer periods This current study takes advantage the fact infractions are start of the prison incarceration. Thereafter, infraction rates decline (Toch and Adams, 1989). research uses Column Total active time period measure the dependant variables. because all inmates during the disciplinary infractions for the first twelve months the temporal order issues are eliminated. asked the research

83 question: are sentenced for be violent i
question: are sentenced for be violent in prison not sentenced for violent hypothesis, a violent and non-violent inmate groups on the dependent variable, violent results appear dependent variable, prison (dichotomized square test’s between violent and non-violent offenders’ likelihood violent acts of misconduct Continuity Correction Likelihood Ratio contains the a one-way testing the relationship violent incidents being incarcerated for a crime that there between violent and non-violent inmates their likelihood We asked research question: the type sentence imposed research hypothesis, parole increases the likelihood an inmate’s in prison violence. the most direct measure the effects prison inmate behavior. violent inmates in the sample. violent inmate inmates sent

84 enced sentenced under previous statutes.
enced sentenced under previous statutes. variance test. Participation in Violent Incidents Participation in Violent Incidents Squares Squares Probability .3846 .3846 52.6024 .1719 table demonstrates no difference between likelihood to Within Groups 306 be involved in violent an inmate serve 85% of without hope did not affect of prison results of measuring the variability between violent of violent rule infractions. Again there variability between violent than their counterparts by NERA the chi-square by this data is, inmate is provisions tell anything about his committing a violent indicate there is insufficient evidence hypothesis that and non-NERA sentenced violence in we conducted two multiple regression analyses, one OLS the second logistic regression analysis. Both models

85 using a list of variables previously to
using a list of variables previously to affect prison violence. Table for a and being involved in in prison is statistically significant. Inmates sentenced the violent non-violent control groups. This a counterintuitive contains the results regression analysis. sentenced inmate are likely to disciplinary infractions control groups. analyses clearly that the having no hope does not increase the likelihood fact the the findings important for the correctional institutions Jersey and the country. This finding should add to our understanding it may offenders into the serving prison its supposed influence prompting inmates’ because they hope the reward other factors influential in while serving prison time. population problems in light was not in the department sought contracts

86 for treatment facilities. New relies pri
for treatment facilities. New relies primarily on private Second, counties the crowding again, this time through contracts for service a voluntary basis. This research demonstrates the need for correctional managers to reevaluate the that inmates violent offenses do housing. This will drive both in construction existing institutions, and in the operation costs supervise inmates. restrictive facilities (below security) are to build and operate. IMPACT ON CRIME VICTIMS impact studies sentencing and/or prosecution reforms concentrate and explaining on the system itself. From a of a public the laws in its very well, an appropriate goal. Criminal passed in order to support victims, however, should also be evaluated well they achieved that goal. course, a cynic say that the purpose Ea

87 rly Release Act not to help victims, but
rly Release Act not to help victims, but to get the for prison construction promised the federal government to pass “Truth in Sentencing” legislation. say that the “Truth in Sentencing” legislation, keep felons prison longer pure incapacitation, and insofar victims wanted felons to prison longer, their wishes have been served. established fact that all felons to stay that the achieve that announcing that a will serve prison term before being released necessarily increase their satisfaction with the sentence imposed any a lower parole out to whether victims in New Jersey were any satisfied with sentences imposed them that the offender the prisoin term than they had eligible for parole after serving a the prison to take legislators’ claims seriously, then v

88 ictims have been satisfied with sentence
ictims have been satisfied with sentences under the Early Release Act.’3 victims-witness office selected three counties that were already giving to each victims at end of each and these study sites. urban, one suburban, counties selected for study were already using a mostly-uniform instrument elicit feedback crime victims. following text victims’ satisfaction in a In that chapter, also report the results this survey the question the correlation between victims’ satisfaction sentences imposed the various professionals involved in their cases. the three counties, sentencing in each case the victim is given about his and feelings regarding the case. victim received the a packet important document issue here: the judge’ sentencing the judge written out, and, the

89 victim attends the sentencing hearing,
victim attends the sentencing hearing, he hears it announced open court. Prior the document state the sentence and also the date that the offender eligible to the fact that the offender is required to a mandatory term imposed before eligible for parole, with the be. (Obviously, the time until release be considerably the judge’ the survey, which asked victims about their satisfaction with various agencies system that handled the victims/witnesses office). survey also gathered data personal characteristics the victims, such age, race, sex, and data, such crime committed. added questions had been used and a five-point ordinal the victims’ overall satisfaction sentence imposed on the offender that this survey was accepted and part of existing procedure and it is distribute

90 d every victim a felony, had expected a
d every victim a felony, had expected a fairly robust response rate, but of these were returned a rate that has apparently never been surveys were first instituted. We with managers in three counties and determined that the response rate partly because, in each county, the survey distributed without a postage-paid envelope for return. We helped the offices their distribution as to attractive to return the surveys, and the rate increased to about exceedingly low, we further determined that virtually returned from victims in the urban county. Further investigation led the conclusion heavily Hispanic population were not returning the surveys, and because they are Thus, the sample returned the survey almost exclusively and one respondents were almost although the suburban county has

91 a populous African-American community,
a populous African-American community, which accounts of the the sample labeled non-white. study’s timeframe enough to complete a Early Release Act” enacted in July, 1997 and initial data collection began 1998. Because between indictment and disposition in serious Jersey, it “before” data for the study. felons sentenced 1998 and for several months thereafter had committed their crimes before the took effect. gathered questionnaires from those crimes in the the courts finally began sentencing felons committed their crimes under Also, responses from victims both covered (violent felonies) and not serious felonies) were gathered. had data from four groups victims: victims serious felons before the the Act, felonies sentenced before the and after the included vic

92 tims of non-serious felonies not have be
tims of non-serious felonies not have been included this legislation at any time satisfaction with sentences imposed depends significantly on the sentence, and whether observed higher satisfaction after passed also observed in which would other reason the increased that time. sentenced before the Early Release passed and sentenced after. of the respondents were white white. The of the victim respondents were normally distributed, a bit the range old. There were they experienced were: non-violent felony sexual assault homicide, relative To test first research question, we asked respondents satisfied they were sentence imposed. We asked their satisfaction level on an ordinal “very satisfied.” Because sample, we constructed the dependent variable satisfaction with sentenc

93 e” expressed binomially, “sati
e” expressed binomially, “satisfied yes” satisfied no.” We then applied a chi-square test of significance to test whether statistically significant difference in satisfaction between the to independent variable sentenced before the Early Release Act applied” versus “sentenced under the Early Release tested whether there any statistically significant difference in levels satisfaction with sentencing before and after all felony victims. Table 17 shows satisfaction levels expressed, among the and “after” groups. of victims satisfied with the sentences are almost identical before and the law. satisfied with the sentence announced court,) the passage of too small to make conclusions from this. Victims’ Satisfaction Sentences Imposed Early

94 Release Act” satisfied with satisfi
Release Act” satisfied with satisfied with satisfied with satisfied with Row total: tests, the value a significance level not approach statistical significance. Perhaps the unusual finding, however, is in the the data’s values. approximately the same Early Release Act, the satisfied doubled respondents returning their questionnaires the Act took effect thus the pool of available subjects were possibly dissatisfied had expanded along with the Note, too, this test we grouped victims into groups: whether the crime had while the Act in effect not. Thus, these groups included victims serious and non-serious felonies. discuss separately, the question whether satisfaction with sentences imposed related to whether the crime that there trend toward greater satisfaction with sen

95 tences Early Release “truth in sent
tences Early Release “truth in sentencing” In fact, chance the opposite true, and thus these statistical tests were actually applied to data running the direction had been expected. Legislators pass laws requiring harsher sentencing because they believe that victims will feel better about these punishments operating under a mistaken notion victims feel and want. But not these respondents were victims crimes that been covered have been had it been effect. Perhaps there satisfaction with sentencing depending serious the crime was. only the groups of victims of felonies actually covered specifically the Act that is, offenses specifically listed such cases: before the Early Release from after. the same statistical tests had significantly increased the offenders before being

96 eligible for parole. There significant
eligible for parole. There significant association. (Using Pearson test, significance 1 19.) Furthermore, the direction in the overall population felony cases: almost twice as people were dissatisfied with the dissatisfied before Since the before/after were about the same size, seems that observed direction confirmed: not did sentencing satisfaction fail improve under Early Release for some reason victims were likely to be dissatisfied their assailants were sentenced under not attribute this drop victim satisfaction anything related to the law; rather, it seems indicate that the Truth Sentencing law is what victims think about the punishment offenders receive, and that something else about sentencing. are generally is curtailed. This conclusion is from a self-selected were most

97 ly white suburbanites, it might change e
ly white suburbanites, it might change ethnically diverse other research (Borg, indicates that findings would stronger because victims ethnic minorities are generally less inclined to severe sentencing than are white suburbanites. In this examination of what happened a state a narrow in Sentencing law, we chose at aspects implementation that sentencing impact evaluators want to whether sentencing impact on prison populations, and perhaps whether crime rate. Those are questions to asked, especially governmental officials deal with the consequences, intended and unintended, legislation. But and asked related often not covered literature: how did prosecutorial affect the sentencing procedures under this the effect bargaining and sentence bargaining on prison terms If offenders have

98 little hope of are they less deterred v
little hope of are they less deterred violent acts while serving time in prison? face value political statements that this to respond to victims any with sentences the offenders prison terms imposed? to each these questions the opposite wisdom would a state which prosecutors are appointed and supervised Attorney General’s office, charge undermine the impact of the law significantly. Charge bargaining practices were about the after the law passed. Sentence bargaining, and as approved did indeed and had the effect of lowering the average sentence imposed after the law passed; however, added, sentences indeed not as long legislation might have allowed and Scholarly literature that the system have maintained a Courts. Despite the fact that typical prison sentences much more to

99 guilty plea rates about the same. Trial
guilty plea rates about the same. Trial rates did not the opposite of prosecutors and defense attorneys volume and seriousness of rule infractions inside correctional institutions committed of their sentences little incentive behave well in hopes of gaining parole increase significantly after offenders serving disciplinary infractions. Victims. Victims’ on violent did not significantly after the took effect. In fact, the levels sentences imposed declined after passage evidence that Jersey any although that the incentive to states to pass Sentencing legislation the federal Congress. Perhaps this due to fact that narrowly written, applying only have already laws in effect prior of the Early Release Act did of time served seems to contemplate, comparatively small group committ

100 ed the James; Clark, John; Patricia and
ed the James; Clark, John; Patricia and Impact of Strikes and You’re Out,’ Punishment and Society, 2, p. 131-162. Probation and Parole Association, Parole: Why the Emperor Has Clothes. Lexington, Nobody Can Mandatory Prison Illegal Carrying of a of a Boston Universitv Law Review, (1977). Vol. 57:pp (pt 1). and Support Vol. 36, (August 1998). Bynum, Timothy, Discretion and Implementation of a Implementing Criminal Morash. Beverly Dine., (1997). and Importation JusticeVol. 25: Carlson, Kenneth, 1982. Mandatorv Sentencing: Justice. Washington, “Expanding the Criminal Court Process: The Results of an Experiment“, Journal Criminal Law Criminolopr, (1984), Vol. 72, Eisenstein, James, Justice: Courts Communities, second edition Robert. Victims of Crime Victims Crimi

101 nal Justice (New D., Grasmick, (1974). &
nal Justice (New D., Grasmick, (1974). “Violence Edna, “Victim Participation Rhetoric and 990), Vol. 18: and Pamela "Victim Participation in Sentencing and with Justice", Justice Gaes, Gerald, and William McGuire, "Prison Violence: Versus Other Determinants of Prison Journal of Research Delinquency, Vol. 22, "Defining the Role the Victim Journal, (1982), History of Truth in Sentencing," in and Cyrus (London: Ashgate Publishing 2002). Hallett, M. "The Push Truth in Constructions in for Contextual Constructionism Planning, Vol. Colin Lofton, "Mandatory Sentencing and the Abolition of Firearms Statute", Law Society Review, (1979), on New Evaluation. 1978. The Nations EvaluatinP the of the Bar of the City and the Inc. Washington, Government Printing Kelly, D.P., "Victims'

102 Perceptions Loftin, Colin, Milton Heuman
Perceptions Loftin, Colin, Milton Heumann, and "Mandatory Sentencing and Firearm Violence: Evaluating Gun Control," Law and Abolishing and Crime", Criminology, 34. No. (1996): pp. Candace, Politics in California. Philadelphia: University Pennsylvania Press Candace and Patrick Victims' Satisfaction with Sentences a Truth Hutton and Cyrus Tata, eds. (London: McCarthey, Bernard, the Prison Crisis: The Restructuring Prison System", Criminal Justice Review, Vol. (April 1988): McManimon, Patrick of Violence Rutgers University, Criminal Justice Impact of the Importation Theories. Doctoral Dissertation, Rutgers University, School of Criminal Justice Arbor: University Megargee, Edwin, Behavior in a Prison Setting”, Prison Violence, Albert Cohen, Heath and Moriarty, Laura Jerin, eds.

103 Current Victimologv Research, New Jerse
Current Victimologv Research, New Jersey Department of Corrections, Early release Prison Expansion and Operating Costs New Jersey Department of Corrections Report to of Budget and effect of Early Release on prison New Jersey Legislature, Public Legislative Services). New Jersey Revised Statutes Jersey Code of Criminal Paul, Minn.: West “Despite Initial Warnings: Tough-on-Crime David Paul Glen L. Pierce, John McDevitt, and William J. in Massachusetts, Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance of Justice, Washington, “The Victim’s Role American Journal 30 (1982) Adams, Copinp: Maladaptation Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books, “Mandatory Penalties”, A Review the Research, Sentencing Matters (New York: Oxford Hirsch, Andrew Ballinger Publishing Welch, Mi

104 chael, “The Reproduction of Violenc
chael, “The Reproduction of Violence Crime and the Twenty-First Centurv, eds. (Upper Saddle Prentice Hall, Kamin, Three Strikes Appendix A General’s Directive Early Release Act, Reprint] SENATE, No. 855 .... STATE OF NEW JERSEY -----......- - INTRODUCED FEBRUARY 26, 1996 By Senators BENNETT, KOSCO, Scott, Casey, McGreevey, Sacco, LaRossa, Matheussen, Assemblywoman Allen, Assemblymen DeSopo, Cregg, Assemblywoman Cncco, Assemblymen Blee, LeFevre, Gibson, Mnlone, Cottrell, ROCCO, Bodine, Assemblywoman J. Smith, Assemblyman BUCCO, Assemblywomao Heck, Assemblymen Asselta, Roma, Azzolina, Assemblywoman Wright, concerning prison sentencing and supplementing supplementing any commutation credits allowed for good behavior and credits earned for diligent application institution

105 al assignments, the contrary, second deg
al assignments, the contrary, second degree degree violence to the custody of the Depamnent of Corrcctionsl' '- wbh the s' shall not be eligible for parole '[until the inmate has served not less than the court-ordered served before inmate sentenced] 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 31 eligibility for parole by an inmate sentenced sentenced Parole Board shall promulgate rules and regulations necessary to carry out the purposes this act pursuant to the "Administrative Procedure S855 [4R] 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 section 9 of P.L.1 979. c.4 The Parole Board rules and reaulatlons ’13.1 e’ This act shall take effect immediate

106 ly ;1[ ‘- -able to .. vo lvdence wh
ly ;1[ ‘- -able to .. vo lvdence who becomes mle for Wer &twe d- ’ 12. Requires persons convicted of certain crimes to serve at least 85% of the term of incarceration. Criminal Justice Zoubek, Director to the at the Association, attached please find the Attorney immediately and applies Assistant Attorney General Director, Operations Bureau, Christine Todd or second-degree the Act must a mininium sentence imposed by court before becoming eligible fixed period following their term violent aggravated sexual assault the actor threatens the producing death or serious ensure the efficient enforcement that the is enforced uniformly and the Pn’tired on Recycled Pamper and Rec)claDle General Directive be .recognized that the overwhelming majority criminal convictions Je

107 rsey are a nepotiated defense, rather ju
rsey are a nepotiated defense, rather jury or a motion consideration for public confidence negotiating dispositions not undermine or exemption provision is set Legislature clearly Early Releaze ole. See also Supreme Court’s April that the mandatory three-year three-year Grave’s Act] is strictly is’the responsibility and structurigg that the offense behavior A’county prosecutor circumstances pertaining appropriately determine whether in accordace Prosecutors have traditionally appropriately been be available for case-by-case basis, serious, significant injury as a simple aggravated sexual exercise reasoned charging legitimate interests degree of in a legitimate concerns of crime their assailants would actually that prosecutors, pursue a charge, consider from t

108 he a public been afforded by a jury.

he a public been afforded by a jury. ‘Pursuant prosecutor without court order and disposition efficient, and event be ones, are resolved intention that certain violent sentence, a Criminal Justice an indictment written statement any proposed pre-indictment pre-indictment disposition complaint, the Director shall comply to the in writing may have assistant prosecutor shall advise circumstances of are such to the provisions of Release Act or threatened deadly weapon). enhanced sentence written notice Early Release Act shall and except may otherwise sentence required plea hearing, parole ineligibility be advised General Directive such period violation thereof defendant returned serve all or remaining period has expired. d a new custodial confinement representing deviation fro

109 m Code of Criminal Justice patterned aft
m Code of Criminal Justice patterned after sanctioning system Act requires then followed distinct term supervised release, supervised release be accomplished plea form, defendant pursuant Directive shall state’s position parole can imprisonment imposed Justice in the state, a negotiated dismiss or count or punishment pursuant prosecutor represents is insufficient evidence a first second-degree conviction, General Directive a third fourth-degree crime prosecutor represents plea is being entered prosecutor represents is necessary has been prosecutor represents on the open court, plea agreement with the the defendant’s reasonable expectations can be conspiracy, as defined conspiracy offense certif. denied 182, 189 (App. Div. injury constitutes a person is an did not or th

110 reaten immediate use a weapon serious bo
reaten immediate use a weapon serious bodily liable for another). The interpreted in Graves’ Act, which has enhanced sentencing Accordingly, a county prosecutor, permit a defendant to Early Release at the sentenang that the had reason use or the immediate firearm, cause serious bodily Early Release had the to promote crime. In any defendant had Criminal Justice by the shall only with the Early Release Nothing in involvingone or more guilty plea negotiated disposition maximum custodial be imposed a prosecutor shall have parole ineligibility (Le., authorizes a court in limited circumstances a first or terin appropriate that the mitigating factors option only recently held: in which has acted for conviction more compelling Legislature has contemplated for this this 143 UT. at

111 502.1 Furthermore, it is clear under pr
502.1 Furthermore, it is clear under present law that when a person convicted of a second-degree crime term appropriate a third-degree crime, principle in a defendaqt second-degree violent sentence imposed a defendant subject by the parole ineligibility, in this section shall prosecutor from agreeing a negotiated disposition defendant be court does impose New Jersey a violent remain ineligible for least 85% degree crimes for is a but onlywhere circumstances and a court a serious injustice, negotiated disposition be sentenced prosecutors would rarely impose a probationary sentence in a applies, especially where enhanced punishment Release Act. is, where offenses (see Establishinp the necessary for a an application minimum term Early Release Super. 197 a mandatory nonetheIess re

112 quires prosecutor shall defendant and co
quires prosecutor shall defendant and court with sentenced pursuant for parole. in a prosecutor shall immediately defendant must custodial sentence imposed before defendant and imposing enhanced Early Release to provide notice shall be deeined Criminal Justice record before deciding whether rely solely automatically establish imposing enhanced shall be for enhanced by a preponderance expressly require a court provides for judicial notice with the court the action shall seek evidence presented but not victims or demonstrates by a used or weapon, notwithstanding Early Release Act during which ineligibility would extended term, imposed on the or second-degree offender subject sentence imposed prosecuted by the state, to the term or enhanced New Jersey Criminal Justice is also the p

113 rosecutor before becoming Directive shal
rosecutor before becoming Directive shall General Directive Early Release be handled provides for parole, see litigation shall to the Early Release Criminal Justice necessary, shall of sentence sentence In ternretation. Any questions concerning the implementation or applicability of the No Early Release Act or concerning this Directive shall Criminal Justice Attorney General General Directive that constitute crimes" as clothing of primarily on at 446- 471. In the context of a sexual penetration not involving unusual or added "physical force," the inclusion of "permission" as an aspect of "physical force" effectively subsumes and obviates any defense based on consent. See N.J.S.A. 2C:2-1 Oc(3). The definition of "permission" serves to define the "consent" that otherwise might

114 allow a defendant to avoid criminal lia
allow a defendant to avoid criminal liability. Bec&use "physics/ force" as an element of sexual BSSaUh in this context requhs the absence of aH5m8tAte and ftedygfftm pemiwbn, the "consent" messsty to negate such "ph ysrCal farce" under a defense based on consent would require the presence of such aflmaative and free&-given pemksiun. Any lesser form of consent wauM render the sexud penetratrbn udawfui and cannot consiituie a defense. I& at 449; emphasis added]. 111. Analysis of State v. Thomas In State v. Thomas, 322 N.J.Suoe.r. 512 (App. Div. 19991, a panel of the Appellate Division rejected the Supreme Court's definition of "physical force, "and ruled that to come within the provisions of NERA, the physical force that was used or threatened had to be independent from the sexual

115 contact or penetration needed to commit
contact or penetration needed to commit the sexual offense. at 10. The opinion did not appty the well-settled principle of statutory construction that statutes in pari materia should be read harmoniously. That principle is applicable because the Legislature used the same term in N.J.S..A. 2C:43-7.2 that it employed in N.J.SC& 2C:'14-2, and which the Supreme Court had interpreted five years prior to the adoption of the No Early Release Act.' "Other statutes dealing with the same subject matter as the one being construed - commonly referred to as statutes in pari materia - comprise [a) form of extrinsic aid useful in deciding questions of interpretation. 26 Norman Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction f 51.01 (5th ed.). "When a legislature enacts a provision, it has available

116 ail the provisions relating to the same
ail the provisions relating to the same subject matter whether in the same statute or in a separate act. Experience indicates that a legislature does not deliberately enact inconsistent "physical farce" involves physical victim's affirmative against children, Early Release physical force 21.1999 Pqge 7 did not give affirmative assent, a notice of appeal to correct the illegal sentence should be filed. This Supplemental Directive is effective immediately and shall control the disposition of every case to which the No Early Release Act is applicable, and shall remain in effect pending disposition of the State's petition for certification in mas. In all other respects, the Attorney General's Directive for enforcing the No Early Release Act dated April 24, 1998, and August 31, 19

117 98, continue in full force and effect. J
98, continue in full force and effect. JOHN J. FARMER JR. ATTORNEY GENERAL The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S.Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:Document Title: New Jersey's "No Early Release Act": Its Impacton Prosecution, Sentencing, Corrections, andVictim Satisfaction, Final ReportAuthor(s):Candace McCoy J.D. ; Patrick McManimon, Jr.Document No.: 203977Date Received:February 2004Award Number:98-CE-VX-0007This 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 totraditional paper copies.Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect