Sentencing Commissions and Guidelines by the Numbers: Cross-Jurisdictional Comparisons Made Easy by the Sentencing Guidelines Resource Center

Though the Sentencing Guidelines Resource Center highlights information for 26 jurisdictions, including the federal government, not all of these jurisdictions have sentencing guidelines. Neither do all of the jurisdictions have sentencing commissions. And over time, jurisdictions have moved back and forth between classifications as sentencing commissions have been formed and sunsetted and as guidelines systems have developed and been undercut by various factors, creating an even larger potential pool for study. This publication focuses on the 17 jurisdictions that exhibit the strongest characteristics of sentencing guidelines: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, U.S., Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Washington, D.C

Criminal History Enhancements Sourcebook

Criminal history scores make up one of the two most significant determinants of the punishment an offender receives in a sentencing guidelines jurisdiction. While prior convictions are taken into account by all U.S. sentencing systems, sentencing guidelines make the role of prior crimes more explicit by specifying the counting rules and by indicating the effect of prior convictions on sentence severity. Yet, once established, criminal history scoring formulas go largely unexamined. Moreover, there is great diversity across state and federal jurisdictions in the ways that an offender's criminal record is considered by courts at sentencing. This Sourcebook brings together for the first time information on criminal history enhancements in all existing U.S. sentencing guidelines systems. Building on this base, the Sourcebook examines major variations in the approaches taken by these systems, and identifies the underlying sentencing policy issues raised by such enhancements.The Sourcebook contains the following elements:A summary of criminal history enhancements in all guidelines jurisdictions;An analysis of the critical dimensions of an offender's previous convictions;A discussion of the policy options available to commissions considering amendments to their criminal history enhancements;A bibliography of key readings on the role of prior convictions at sentencing

The Continuing Leverage of Releasing Authorities: Findings from a National Survey

The Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice launched a national survey of releasing authorities in March 2015 to each state, and the U.S. Parole Commission. The importance of the survey was underscored by an endorsement from the Association of Paroling Authorities International (APAI). We are pleased to present the results from this important survey here. This is the first comprehensive survey of parole boards completed in nearly 10 years. Its findings provide a rich database for better understanding the policy and practice of paroling authorities. The last survey to be conducted of paroling authorities was in 2007/2008.The current report offers an expansion and update of previous surveys. The results summarized throughout the report offer a timely resource for paroling authorities, correctional policy-makers and practitioners, legislators, and those with a public policy interest in sentencing and criminal justice operations. It is our hope that the document and its findings provide key justice system and other stakeholders with an incisive snapshot of the work of paroling authorities across the country in a manner that contributes to a larger conversation about sound and effective parole release and revocation practices.The completion of this comprehensive survey and the reporting of its findings offers a timely and invaluable resource for releasing authorities. It provides them and other key justice system stakeholders with a comparative understanding of their colleagues' work across the nation, and contributes to a larger conversation pertaining to effective parole release and revocation practices

Risk Averse and Disinclined: What COVID Prison Releases Demonstrate About the Ability of the United States to Reduce Mass Incarceration

"Risk Averse and Disinclined" builds upon prior findings produced last year through the Institute's publication ?"Examining Prison Releases in Response to COVID: Lessons Learned for Reducing the Effects of Mass Incarceration." Through this new report, researchers present case studies of six states?—?Alabama, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Washington?—?to gain a more in-depth view of what legal mechanisms were available to jurisdictions and the factors that influenced whether they were willing or able to use those mechanisms to release people from prison during the pandemic. The findings of this report show that although jurisdictions have the power to make releases from prison using back-end discretion, they are unlikely to use it due to risk aversion stemming from the fear of public and political backlash should anyone who is released go on to commit a serious crime. Thus, the authors continue to conclude that back-end release mechanisms offer only a modest opportunity to reduce mass incarceration. Instead, state-level carceral policies that focus on diffusing responsibility for back-end release and reduce incarceration in the first place have the greatest chance of achieving long-term reductions in prison populations

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

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

Psychosocial impact of undergoing prostate cancer screening for men with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations.

OBJECTIVES: To report the baseline results of a longitudinal psychosocial study that forms part of the IMPACT study, a multi-national investigation of targeted prostate cancer (PCa) screening among men with a known pathogenic germline mutation in the BRCA1 or BRCA2 genes. PARTICPANTS AND METHODS: Men enrolled in the IMPACT study were invited to complete a questionnaire at collaborating sites prior to each annual screening visit. The questionnaire included sociodemographic characteristics and the following measures: the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Impact of Event Scale (IES), 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36), Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer, Cancer Worry Scale-Revised, risk perception and knowledge. The results of the baseline questionnaire are presented. RESULTS: A total of 432 men completed questionnaires: 98 and 160 had mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, respectively, and 174 were controls (familial mutation negative). Participants' perception of PCa risk was influenced by genetic status. Knowledge levels were high and unrelated to genetic status. Mean scores for the HADS and SF-36 were within reported general population norms and mean IES scores were within normal range. IES mean intrusion and avoidance scores were significantly higher in BRCA1/BRCA2 carriers than in controls and were higher in men with increased PCa risk perception. At the multivariate level, risk perception contributed more significantly to variance in IES scores than genetic status. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to report the psychosocial profile of men with BRCA1/BRCA2 mutations undergoing PCa screening. No clinically concerning levels of general or cancer-specific distress or poor quality of life were detected in the cohort as a whole. A small subset of participants reported higher levels of distress, suggesting the need for healthcare professionals offering PCa screening to identify these risk factors and offer additional information and support to men seeking PCa screening