State criminal justice systems have great opportunities to learn from the successes and failures of other states. Justice Brandeis famously called the states “laboratories” for innovation in law and policy. Yet researchers, policy makers, and law makers have done too little to exploit this unique American resource. This article highlights a number of issues in the field of sentencing and corrections that jump forward from a combined reading of all the articles published in this volume. The subjects are: (1) a suggestion for improvement on the current model for state-based research in criminal justice; (2) the pressing need to attend to policy issues at the “back end” of the sentencing chronology; (3) the growing use of risk assessment technology at various stages of the sentencing process; (4) the need to embrace less-than-perfect solutions; and (5) the need to develop new policy approaches to combat racial and ethnic disparities among those sentenced.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Bar Association. (1994). ABA standards for criminal justice: Sentencing (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: ABA Press.
2.
American Law Institute. (2002). Model penal code: Sentencing (Preliminary Draft No.1). Philadelphia: American Law Institute.
3.
American Law Institute. (2007). Model penal code: Sentencing (Tentative Draft No. 1, Approved May 16, 2007). Philadelphia: American Law Institute.
4.
American Law Institute. (2009). Model penal code: Sentencing (Preliminary Draft No. 7).
5.
AustinJ. (2010). Reducing America's correctional populations: A strategic plan. Justice Research and Policy, 12(1), _____.
6.
AyersE. L. (1984). Vengeance and justice: Crime and punishment in the nineteenth-century American south. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
BalesW. D.GaesG. G.BlombergT. G., & PateK. N. (2010). An assessment of the development and outcomes of determinate sentencing. Justice Research and Policy, 12(1), ____.
8.
BergstromM. H., & MistickJ. S. (2010). Danger and opportunity: Making public safety job one in an indeterminate system. Justice Research and Policy, 12(1), _____.
9.
BlumsteinA., & WallmanJ. (Eds). (2000). The crime drop in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BrandeisL. D. (1932). New State Ice Co. v. Liebman, 285 U.S. 262 (dissenting opinion).
11.
ChurchillW. S. (1947). Speech, House of Commons, November 11, 1947. In JamesR. R., (Ed.), (1974), Winston S. Churchill: His complete speeches, 1897–1963 (Vol. 7, p. 7566). New York: Chelsea House.
12.
DonohueJ. J.III. (2009). Assessing the relative benefits of incarceration: Overall changes and benefits at the margin. In RaphaelS., & StollM. A. (Eds.), Do prisons make us safer? The benefits and costs of the prison boom (pp. 269–341). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
13.
DoobA. N., & WebsterC. M. (2003). Sentence severity and crime: Accepting the null hypothesis. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 30, pp. 143–195). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
14.
ElliottD. S.GreenbergM. T.KuscheC., & MihalicS. F. (1998). Blueprints for violence prevention: Promoting alternative thinking strategies (paths). Boulder, CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado.
15.
FabeloT. (2010). Texas justice reinvestment: Be more like Texas?Justice Research and Policy, 12(1), _____.
16.
FraseR. S. (2005). Sentencing guidelines in Minnesota, 1978–2003. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 32, pp. 131–219). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17.
FraseR. S. (2009). What explains persistent racial disproportionality in Minnesota's prison and jail populations? In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 38, pp. 201–280). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
GottfredsonM., & GottfredsonD. (1986). Accuracy of prediction models. In BlumsteinA. (Ed.), Criminal careers and career criminals (Vol. 2, pp. 212–290). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
19.
GroveW. M., & MeehlP. E. (1996). Comparative efficiency of informal (subjective, impressionistic) and formal (mechanical, algorithmic) prediction. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 2, 293–323.
20.
HarrisG. T.RiceM. E., & CormierC. A. (2002). Prospective replication of the violence risk appraisal guide in predicting violent recidivism among forensic patients. Law & Human Behavior, 26, 377–394.
21.
JacobsonM. (2005). Downsizing prisons: How to reduce crime and end mass incarceration. New York: New York University Press.
22.
KennedyR. (1997). Race, crime, and the law. New York: Pantheon Books.
23.
KernR. (1995). Sentencing reform in Virginia. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 8(2), 84–88.
24.
LevittS. D., & DubnerS. J. (2005). Freakonomics: A rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything. New York: William Morrow.
25.
MauerM. (2007). Racial impact statements as a means of reducing unwarranted sentencing disparities. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 5(1), 19–46.
26.
OstromB. J.KleimanM.CheesmanF.IIHansenR. M. & KauderN. B. (2002). Offender risk assessment in Virginia: A three-stage evaluation. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
27.
PetersiliaJ. (2008). California's correctional paradox of excess and deprivation. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 37, pp. 207–278). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28.
PiehlA. M.UseemB., & DiIulioJ. J.Jr. (1999). Right-sizing justice: A cost-benefit analysis of imprisonment in three states. New York: Manhattan Institute.
29.
PizziW. T. (1993). Understanding prosecutorial discretion in the United Sates: Limits of comparative criminal procedure as an instrument of reform. Ohio State Law Journal, 54, 1325–1373.
30.
ReitzK. R. (2004). Questioning the conventional wisdom of parole release authority. In TonryM. (Ed.), The future of imprisonment (pp. 199–235). New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
ReitzK. R. (2006). Don't blame determinacy: U.S. incarceration growth has been driven by other forces. Texas Law Review, 84(7), 1787–1802.
32.
ReitzK. R. (2009). Demographic impact statements, O'Connor's warning, and the mysteries of prison release: Topics from a sentencing reform agenda. Florida Law Review, 61(4), 683–707.
33.
RobinsonP. H., & DarleyJ. M. (1995). Justice, liability, and blame. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
34.
RothmanD. J. (1980). Conscience and convenience: The asylum and its alternatives in progressive America. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
35.
RuthH., & ReitzK. R. (2003). The challenge of crime: Rethinking our response. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36.
ShermanL. W. (2000). Reducing incarceration rates: The promise of experimental criminology. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 299–314.
37.
SpelmanW. (2000). The limited importance of prison expansion. In BlumsteinA. & WallmanJ. (Eds.). The crime drop in America (pp. 97–129). New York: Cambridge University Press.
38.
StemenD.RengifoA., & WilsonJ. (2005). Of fragmentation and ferment: The impact of state sentencing policies on incarceration rates, 1975–2002. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
39.
Stivers IrelandC., & PrauseJ. (2005). Discretionary parole release: Length of imprisonment, percent of sentence served, and recidivism. Journal of Crime & Justice, 28, 27–49.
40.
TonryM. (1995). Malign neglect: Race, crime, and punishment in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
41.
TonryM., & MelewskiM. (2008). The malign effects of drug and crime control policies on black Americans. In TonryM. (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 37, pp. 1–44). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
42.
UseemB. (2010). Right-sizing corrections in New York. Justice Research and Policy, 12(1), _____.
43.
Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission. (2001). Assessing risk among sex offenders in Virginia. Richmond, VA: Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission.
44.
Von HirschA.KnappK. A., & TonryM. (1987). The sentencing commission and its guidelines. Boston: Northeastern University Press.
45.
WeisbergR. (2007). How sentencing commissions turned out to be a good idea. Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law, 12, 179–230.
46.
WeisbergR. (2010). The not-so-golden state of sentencing and corrections: California's lessons for the nation. Justice Research and Policy, 12(1), _____.
47.
WolffM. A. (2008). Evidence-based judicial discretion: Promoting public safety through state sentencing reform. New York University Law Review, 83(5), 1389–1419.
48.
ZimringF. E. (2007). The great American crime decline. New York: Oxford University Press.
49.
ZimringF. E., & HawkinsG. (1995). Incapacitation: Penal confinement and the restraint of crime. New York: Oxford University Press.
