This study examines state policies governing criminal sentencing and prison release decisions between 1970 and 2010. The goal is to create common definitions and operationalizations of policies to better specify state-level policy differences over time and across jurisdictions. Relying on an independent review of state codes, we define and catalogue key legislative initiatives adopted across the states, including presumptive sentences, sentencing guidelines, and the abolition of discretionary release. We argue that a set of common definitions and accounting is necessary for enhancing research on the content, adoption, and impact of policies and for assisting policymakers in the development of reform initiatives in the areas of sentencing and corrections.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BalesW. D.GaesG. G.BlombergT. G., & PateK. N. (2010). An assessment of the development and outcomes of determinate sentencing in Florida. Justice Research and Policy, 12, 41–71.
2.
BeckettK. (1997). Making crime pay: Law and order in contemporary American politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3.
BeckettK., & SassonT. (1999). The politics of injustice: Crime and punishment in America. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.
4.
Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1996). National assessment of structured sentencing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
5.
Bureau of Justice Assistance. (1998). National assessment of structured sentencing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
6.
CaplowT., & SimonJ. (1999). Understanding prison policy and population trends. In TonryM. H. & PetersiliaJ. (Eds.), Crime and justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
7.
ChanensonS. L. (2005). The next era of sentencing reform. Emory Law Journal, 54, 378–460.
8.
ChiricosT. G. (1998). The media, moral panics, and the politics of crime control. In ColeG. F. & GertzM. G. (Eds.), The criminal justice system: Politics and policies. Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth Publishing.
9.
DriessenM. A., & DurhamW. C. (2002). Sentencing dissonances in the United States: The shrinking distance between punishment proposed and sanction served. American Journal of Comparative Law, 50, 623–641.
10.
FraseR. S. (2005). State sentencing guidelines: Diversity, consensus, and unresolved policy issues. Columbia Law Review, 105, 1190–1232.
11.
GarlandD. (2001). The culture of control. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
12.
GreenbergD. F., & WestV. (2001). State prison populations and their growth, 1971–1991. Criminology, 39(3), 615–653.
13.
HallB. R. (2009). Mandatory sentencing guidelines by any other name: When “indeterminate structured sentencing” violatesBlakely v. Washington. Drake Law Review57, 643–692.
14.
HenryD. A.AustinJ., & ClarkJ. (1997). Three strikes and you're out: A review of state legislation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
15.
JacobsD., & CarmichaelJ. T. (2001). The politics of punishment across time and space: A pooled time-series analysis of imprisonment rates. Social Forces, 80(1), 61–89.
16.
KauderN. B., & OstromB. J. (2008). State sentencing guidelines: Profiles and continuum. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
17.
KauttP. M., & DeloneM. A. (2006). Sentencing outcomes under competing but coexisting sentencing interventions: Untying the Gordian knot. Criminal Justice Review, 31(2), 105–131.
18.
LawrenceA. (2009). Cutting corrections costs: Earned time policies for state prisoners. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures.
19.
LubitzR. L., & RossT. W. (2001). Sentencing guidelines: Reflections on the future. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
20.
MarvellT. B. (1995). Sentencing guidelines and prison population growth. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85, 101–115.
21.
MarvellT. B., & MoodyC. E. (1996). Determinate sentencing and abolishing parole: The long-term impacts on prisons and crime. Criminology, 34(1), 107–128.
22.
MarvellT. B., & MoodyC. E. (2000). The impact of determinate sentencing laws on delay, trial rates, and plea rates in seven states. A final report to the National Institute of Justice for Grant Number 98-CE-VX-0017. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
23.
Nicholson-CrottyS. (2004). The impact of sentencing guidelines on state-level sanctions: An analysis over time. Crime & Delinquency, 50(3), 395–411.
24.
OstromB. J.KauderN. B.RottmanD., & PetersonM. (1998). Sentencing digest: Examining current sentencing issues and policies. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
25.
ParentD.DunworthT.McDonaldD., & RhodesW. (1996a). Key legislative issues in criminal justice: Mandatory sentencing. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
26.
ParentD.DunworthT.McDonaldD., & RhodesW. (1996b). Key legislative issues in criminal justice: The impact of sentencing guidelines. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
27.
PfaffJ. F. (2005). The continued vitality of structured sentencing following Blakely: The effectiveness of voluntary guidelines. UCLA Law Review, 54, 235–307.
28.
ReitzK. R. (2010). Brandeis's laboratories of sentencing and corrections: Making better use of knowledge from the states. Justice Research and Policy, 12(1), 169–186.
29.
ReitzK. R., & ReitzC. R. (1993). The American Bar Association's new sentencing standards. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 6(3), 169–173.
30.
SabolW. J.RosichK.KaneK. M.KirkD., & DubinG. (2002). Influences of Truth-in-Sentencing reforms on changes in states' sentencing practices and prison populations (Final Report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
31.
SchlesingerT. (2011). The failure of race neutral policies: How mandatory terms and sentencing enhancements contribute to mass racialized incarceration. Crime & Delinquency, 57(1), 56–81.
32.
Shane-DubowS.BrownA. P., & OlsenE. (1985). Sentencing reform in the United States: History, context and effect. Washington DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
33.
SingerR. (1978). In favor of “presumptive sentences” set by a sentencing commission. Crime & Delinquency, 24(4), 401–427.
34.
SmithK. B. (2004). The politics of punishment: Evaluating political explanations of incarceration rates. The Journal of Politics, 66(3), 925–938.
35.
SpelmanW. (2009). Crime, cash, and limited options: Explaining the prison boom. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(1), 29–77.
36.
SpohnC. (2009). How do judges decide? The search for fairness and justice in punishment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
StemenD., & RengifoA. F. (2005). Of fragmentation and ferment: State sentencing policies 1975–2002. A final report to the National Institute of Justice for Grant # 2002-IJ-CX-0027. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
38.
StemenD., & RengifoA. F. (2011). Policies and imprisonment: The impact of structured sentencing and determinate sentencing on state incarceration rates, 1978–2004. Justice Quarterly, 28(1), 174–201.
39.
TonryM. H. (1996). Sentencing matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
40.
TonryM. H. (2004). Thinking about crime. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
41.
WilsonJ. Q. (1975). Thinking about crime. New York, NY: Basic.
42.
Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004)
43.
Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007)
44.
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)
45.
HuntK., & ConnellyM. (2005). Advisory guidelines in the post-Blakely era. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 17(4), 233–242.
46.
KauderN. B., & OstromB. J. (2008). State sentencing guidelines: Profiles and continuum. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
47.
ShermanL.W.GottfredsonD.MacKenzieD.EckJ.ReuterP. & BushwayS. (1996). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
48.
WuL-TWoodyG. E.YangC.PanJ-J., & BlazerD. G. (2011). Racial/ethnic variations in substance-related disorders among adolescents in the United States. Archives of General Psychiatry, 68(11), 1176.
49.
AosS.MillerM., & DrakeE. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
50.
BlumsteinA., & BeckA. J. (1999). Population growth in U.S. prisons 1980–1996. In TonryM. and PetersiliaJ. (Eds.), Crime and justice (pp. 17–61). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
ChanensonS. L. (2005). The next era of sentencing reform, Emory Law Journal, 54, 378–460.
53.
ClearT. R.RoseD.R., & RyderJ.A. (2001). Incarceration and the community: The problem of removing and returning prisoners. Crime and Delinquency, 47, 335–351.
54.
FrankelM. E. (1972). Criminal sentences: Law without order. New York: Hill and Wang.
55.
FraseR. S. (2005). State sentencing guidelines: Diversity, consensus, and unresolved policy issues. Columbia Law Review, 105, 1190–1232.
56.
FriedmanL. M. (1993). Crime and punishment in American history. New York: Basic Books.
57.
HuntK. S., & SridharanS. (2010). A realist evaluation approach to unpacking the impacts of the sentencing guidelines. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(4), 463–485.
58.
JacobsonM. (2005). Downsizing prisons: How to reduce crime and end mass incarceration. New York: NYU Press.
59.
MearsD. P., & BarnesJ. C. (2010). Toward a systematic foundation for identifying evidence-based criminal justice sanctions and their relative effectiveness. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 702–710.
60.
PawsonR.WongG., & OwenL. (2011). Known knowns, known unknowns, unknown unknowns: The predicament of evidence-based policy. American Journal of Evaluation32(4), 518–546.
ReitzK. R. (2011). Sentencing. In WilsonJ. Q. & PetersiliaJ. (Eds.), Crime and public policy (pp. 467–498). New York: Oxford University Press.
63.
SpelmanW. (2009). Crime, cash, and limited options: Explaining the prison boom. Criminology and Public Policy, 8(1), 29–77.
64.
StemenD. (2007). Reconsidering incarceration: New directions for reducing crime. New York: Vera Institute.
65.
StemenD., & RengifoA. F. (2012). Charting the evolution of structure and determinacy in state sentencing and corrections policies 1970–2010. Justice Research and Policy, 14(2), 1–32.
66.
TonryM. H. (2004). Thinking about crime. New York: Oxford University Press.
67.
TonryM. H. (1996). Sentencing matters. New York: Oxford University Press.
68.
TonryM. (1999, September). The fragmentation of sentencing and corrections in America. Sentencing & Corrections Issues for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
69.
ZimringF. E. (2011). The city that became safe: New York's lessons for urban crime and its control. New York: Oxford University Press.
