Probation In-Depth: The Length of Probation Sentences

In 2014, the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice published a report entitled Profiles in Probation Revocation: Examining the Legal Framework in 21 States , the purpose of which was to gain understanding of the laws and processes governing probation revocation in a cross-section of states. Building from that report, this informational brief pulls together the statutes that govern the length of probation sentences in each of the twenty-one jurisdictions studied, as well as the legal framework for early termination or extension of the probation term

Profiles in Parole Release and Revocation Connecticut

Connecticut shifted from indeterminate to "definite" sentencing in 1981. This means that crimes have statutory minimum and maximum penalties, and that defendants are sentenced to a term of years rather than a range of years. For a time after the 1981 reforms, there was no traditional parole in the state; however, discretionary parole release for those with sentences over two years was reestablished in 1993. In the 1980s and 1990s, there was also an increase in mandatory minimum legislation. In 1995, the legislature established truth in sentencing laws for violent offenders, requiring them to serve at least 85% of a sentence before release. In 2004, the Board of Pardons (established in 1883) and the Board of Paroles (established in 1957) were merged to form the Board of Pardons and Paroles

Profiles in Parole Release and Revocation Nevada

Felony sentences in Nevada have both a minimum and a maximum term, unless a definite term is required by statute. In 2017, legislation was passed creating the Nevada Sentencing Commission. The Commission hasmany statutory duties, including formulating statutory sentencing guidelines to be enacted by the legislature. Nevada's first Pardons Board was created in 1867. The Board was granted the power to parole inmates in 1909. In 1989, Nevada passed legislation that required the Board to create standards for parole release and revocation.Nevada also signed justice reinvestment legislation in 2007, which increased incentives for parolees to comply with supervision and expanded alternatives to incarceration

Profiles in Parole Release and Revocation Kentucky

Sentences imposed in Kentucky are for a specific number of years (i.e. "three years"); referred to as a "fixed" sentence in state statute. Kentucky does not have sentencing guide-lines or a sentencing commission. Parole was first authorized in Kentucky in 1888. In 1900, the Board of Prison Commissioners was granted releasing authority. A full-time parole board was established in 1962 and, most recently, was expanded to nine members in 2010. In 2011, HB 463 (the Offender Accountability Act) passed; as a result, parole release now requires risk and needs assessment, parolees can complete some correctional programming in the community, and many other changes have been made. In 2012, some provisions were modified by HB 54, a bill that allowed the Department of Corrections to set special conditions of parole based on risk assessment. Finally, in 2015, SB 192 modified parole release for some serious heroin offenses and now requires cost calculations for reentry services for those with opiate or other drug addictions

Profiles in Parole Release and Revocation Maryland

The Maryland Parole Commission (MPC) was created in 1976 to replace the Board of Parole, which had been established in 1968. The first Advisory Board of Parole was founded in 1914. Maryland has had advisory sentencing guidelines since 1983. A sentence pronounced under the guidelines represents the maximum time an offender may serve and the parole commission then determines when an inmate will be considered for release

Profiles in Parole Release and Revocation Idaho

Idaho has had a parole release authority since 1899. Idaho's sentencing framework requires judges to impose a minimum length of incarceration in each felony case; judges may also impose a subsequent indeterminate term of incarceration, during which an inmate may be eligible for parole. Idaho law also imposes mandatory minimum sentences for some crimes. Idaho does not have a sentencing commission or sentencing guidelines

Profiles in Parole Release and Revocation Rhode Island

Rhode Island does not have a sentencing commission or statutory sentencing guidelines. The Rhode Island Superior Court, which has jurisdiction over felony crimes and sentences, uses sentencing benchmarks as well as general, statutory authority to sentence offenders to a specific term of imprisonment. Rhode Island has had conditional release since 1896, and the Parole Board has existed in some form since 1915. In 1993, the legislature passed an act that increased the number of board members from 6 to 7 and added a fulltime chairperson

Competency in Minnesota: A Practitioners' Roundtable Report

On January 15, 2016, the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice brought together nearly 200 people for a day of discussion of what Minnesota is doing to secure better outcomes in criminal cases involving mental illness, and to compare ideas on what still needs to be done. Participants included lawyers, judges, law enforcement, policymakers, mental health service providers, advocates, and members of the public. Numerous ideas were suggested for follow up, including the issue of a defendant's competency to stand trial.By the spring, issues related to a defendant's competency to stand trial were receiving greater scrutiny in multiple forums. The Legislative Auditor reported in March that orders for competency evaluations increased by 96% from 2010 to 2014. The Legislative Auditor made seven recommendations for policy changes, concerning both the process in the courts, and the resources to be provided for people deemed not competent. In April, the Supreme Court issued an order seeking comment on a number of proposals, one of which was to establish a new group to evaluate the rules that govern the connection between the criminal competency determination and civil commitment. And on a national level, the American Bar Association continued its work to develop new standards in this area.Because of the tremendous interest in this area, on June 10, 2016, the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice convened a group of 22 practitioners, policymakers, and researchers from the mental health and criminal justice communities for a roundtable discussion. The premises for the conversation were, first, that in the near future there are likely to be major discussions among policymakers about changes in this area; and, second, that when those discussions occur, many of the people involved in the Robina conference would be present. Past Robina events yielded the insight that professionals benefit from better understanding the viewpoints of others working in different fields on the same issue. Thus, the purpose of the roundtable was to engage in a multi-agency discussion of how Minnesota handles competency issues, and to develop potential recommendations for improving the system. Participants exchanged ideas on three topics:What problems exist in how Minnesota addresses competency to stand trial?What changes would the group recommend?What are the group's reactions to the Legislative Auditor's recommendations?This report attempts to summarize many of the ideas discussed and developed through the June roundtable discussion. The Institute agreed not to attribute comments to individual participants in the interest of open discussion. The conversation was complex and free-flowing, and this report does not include everything that was said. The recommendations relating to competency that were identified by the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor are included and discussed in section 3 of this report. The discussion participants are identified on page 9 of this report

Profiles in Parole Release and Revocation Iowa

Iowa does not have a sentencing commission or sentencing guidelines. It is an indeterminate sentencing state that has, over time, adopted mandatory minimum penalties for certain crimes. Its Board of Parole was established in 1907, and has operated continuously since