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 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 Probation Revocation: Examining the Legal Framework in 21 States

This report compiles—in a convenient format—the results of a yearlong research project on the laws relating to probation revocation in 21 American states. 2 By leafing through the four-page "legal profiles" presented in this volume, readers can easily see how much variation exists in statewide laws of probation and probation revocation, while zeroing in on issues of greatest interest. Whether a reader's jurisdiction is included in the report's 21 states or not, the legal profiles contain a wealth of information that will allow for comparison with one's own system. We think every reader—no matter how experienced in the field—will come across practices or ideas in this study that they never heard of before.The report assumes that American states have much to learn from one another. Justice Louis Brandeis famously believed that the states can serve as "laboratories" for innovations in law and policy, so that best practices can emerge and be brought to the attention of other states for possible adoption or adaptation. 3 In order for Brandeis's laboratory to be a reality, however, the states must have some way of learning about the practices of other jurisdictions. In an increasingly complex and specialized world, this is a daunting task—and one that often requires a heavy investment in research. The Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice has made such an investment in this report. We hope it will allow readers to see their home jurisdictions in new perspective, and will further the nationwide process of dialogue and improvement that Justice Brandeis envisioned.This introduction gives a short overview of why the subject matter is important and how the report fits within a larger Probation Revocation Project launched by the Robina Institute in 2013. The introduction will also discuss the ambitions, scope, limitations, and uses of the state legal profiles

Exploring Supervision Fees in Four Probation Jurisdictions in Texas

In 2014, the University of Minnesota's Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice began a multi-state study that was tasked with exploring nationwide variations in the practices and policies of probation violations and revocations. A distinctive finding that grew out of the Robina Institute's work in two Texas counties was that probation supervision fees play a major role throughout the state. Probationers are required as one of 25 standard conditions to pay supervision fees, and—depending on the case— they may have to pay additional program fees, fines, and restitution. Texas probation departments depend on supervision fees for a large share of their operating budgets, and they are responsible for collecting those fees. Because payment of fees is a formal condition of probation, probationers may be sanctioned if they fall delinquent. Additionally, their probation terms may be extended to allow more time to pay, or early termination may be denied. In interviews, some probationers believed they could be revoked to jail or prison for failure to pay supervision fees. However, we heard from probation officers that probationers were not revoked solely for fees. The officers told us that nonpayment may be one reason probationers are revoked, but only when combined with other violations.The Robina Institute was encouraged by other probation chiefs in Texas to add additional counties to our study. To understand the interaction between probation and criminal justice fees in greater depth, the Robina Institute conducted a mixed methods study with 4 probation jurisdictions in Texas. Quantitative data was analyzed to examine the average amount of fees ordered, the breakdown of the fees ordered, and the percent of probationers who were current and delinquent on their fees. The quantitative analysis also examined the outcomes for those who were delinquent on their fees. Qualitative interviews were conducted with probationers to understand how fees impacted them and their experience of probation, as well as how they handled paying their fees. Probation officers were also interviewed to examine how fees were utilized and how officers collected fees.This report highlights some of the findings from qualitative interviews with over 50 probation officers and 46 probationers in 4 probation jurisdictions. A separate report highlights our quantitative findings; future Robina Institute publications will explore the quantitative and qualitative data in greater depth, as well as legal issues associated with the imposition and collection of supervision fees.The first section of this report presents findings from the focus groups with the probation officers. The second section focuses on findings from the probationer focus groups

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

Small Molecule Inhibitors of the BfrB-Bfd Interaction Decrease Pseudomonas aeruginosa Fitness and Potentiate Fluoroquinolone Activity

© 2019 American Chemical Society. All rights reserved. The iron storage protein bacterioferritin (BfrB) is central to bacterial iron homeostasis. The mobilization of iron from BfrB, which requires binding by a cognate ferredoxin (Bfd), is essential to the regulation of cytosolic iron levels in P. aeruginosa. This paper describes the structure-guided development of small molecule inhibitors of the BfrB-Bfd protein-protein interaction. The process was initiated by screening a fragment library and followed by obtaining the structure of a fragment hit bound to BfrB. The structural insights were used to develop a series of 4-(benzylamino)- A nd 4-((3-phenylpropyl)amino)-isoindoline-1,3-dione analogs that selectively bind BfrB at the Bfd binding site. Challenging P. aeruginosa cells with the 4-substituted isoindoline analogs revealed a dose-dependent growth phenotype. Further investigation determined that the analogs elicit a pyoverdin hyperproduction phenotype that is consistent with blockade of the BfrB-Bfd interaction and ensuing irreversible accumulation of iron in BfrB, with concomitant depletion of iron in the cytosol. The irreversible accumulation of iron in BfrB prompted by the 4-substituted isoindoline analogs was confirmed by visualization of BfrB-iron in P. aeruginosa cell lysates separated on native PAGE gels and stained for iron with Ferene S. Challenging P. aeruginosa cultures with a combination of commercial fluoroquinolone and our isoindoline analogs results in significantly lower cell survival relative to treatment with either antibiotic or analog alone. Collectively, these findings furnish proof of concept for the usefulness of small molecule probes designed to dysregulate bacterial iron homeostasis by targeting a protein-protein interaction pivotal for iron storage in the bacterial cell

Synthesis, structural characterisation and proton conduction of two new hydrated phases of barium ferrite BaFeO_2.5−x(OH)_2x

Materials exhibiting mixed electronic and proton conductivity are of great interest for applications ranging from electrodes for proton conducting ceramic fuel cells to hydrogen separation membranes. In this work, we report a detailed investigation of the effect of water incorporation in BaFeO2.5 on the structure and conductivity. BaFeO2.5 is shown to be topochemically transformed to two different hydrated modifications, low-water (LW-) and high-water (HW-) BaFeO2.5. A combined analysis of neutron and X-ray diffraction data was used to determine the crystal structure of LW-BaFeO2.5 (BaFeO2.33(OH)0.33), which shows a unique ordering pattern of anion vacancies for perovskite type compounds, with structural relaxations around vacancies being similar to the chemically similar compound BaFeO2.33F0.33. Approximate proton positions were determined using the bond valence method. Conductivity studies of hydrated and pure BaFeO2.5 (with additional comparison to oxidized BaFeO2.5) show a significant enhancement of the conductivity on water incorporation, which can be attributed to proton conductivity. This is the first report of significant grain proton conduction (∼10−6 to 10−7 S cm−1) in an iron based perovskite. Water uptake is further shown to be completely reversible, with reformation of BaFeO2.5 when heating the compound to temperatures above ∼450 K under Ar

The Future of American Sentencing: A National Roundtable on Blakely

In the wake of the dramatic Supreme Court decision in Blakely v. Washington, Stanford Law School convened an assembly of the most eminent academic and professional sentencing experts in the country to jointly assess the meaning of the decision and its implications for federal and state sentencing reform. The event took place on October 8 and 9, just a few months after Blakely came down and the very week that the Supreme Court heard the arguments in United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan, the cases that will test Blakely\u27s application to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Thus the Roundtable offered these experts an intellectual breathing space at a crucial point in American criminal law. The event was built around six sessions, with shifting panels of participants doing brief presentations on the subject of the session, and with others then joining in the discussion. We are pleased that FSR is able to publish this version of the proceedings of the event-a condensed and edited transcript of the sessions