Review of Guidelines Worksheet Structure - Research Proposal

2

Sentencing Guidelines Design

Conviction

No Prison Prison

Section C:Prison Sentence Length

Recommendation

Probation Jail

Section A:Prison In/Out Recommendation

Section B:Probation/Jail

Recommendation

3

Prison v. Jail Sentences

The definition of what constitutes a prison (state-responsible) sentence versus a jail (local-responsible) sentence has changed several times since 1990.

4

Prison v. Jail Sentences

Prison - 1 yr. or moreJail - 12 mos. or less

1990 20021992 1994 1996 1998 2000

Prison - more than 2 yrs.Jail - 2 yrs. or less

Abolition of parole

Prison - 1 yr. or moreJail - less than 1 yr.

Prison* - 1 yr. or moreJail* - 12 mos. or less

* policy of Virginia Department of Corrections

Prison - more than 6 mos.Jail - 6 mos. or less

Structure of current guidelines

5

Current Sentencing Guidelines Structure

Conviction

No Yes

Section C:Sentence Length

Recommendation -Incarceration > 6 months

Probation IncarcerationUp to 6 months

Section A:Incarceration > 6 monthsYes/No Recommendation

Section B:Probation or

Incarceration up to 6 months Recommendation

6

7

Current Sentencing Guidelines Structure

The existing sentencing guidelines structure has been out of sync with the definition of a prison sentence since 1998.

The Commission has never formally reviewed the impact of this inconsistency.

Judicial practices related to the imposition of jail versus prison sanctions have not been fully explored since the change in definition occurred.

8

Truth-in-Sentencing/No Parole System

Under the truth-in-sentencing/no-parole system, felons must serve at least 85% of the effective sentence no matter where they are physically housed.

• There is no longer a difference between jail and prison in the percent of sentence served by felons.

There may be different factors, however, that judges consider when deciding whether to sentence an offender to a jail versus prison term.

9

Research Proposal

Staff proposes performing exploratory analysis to examine:

• the impact of the inconsistency between the structure of the guidelines and the definition of a prison sentence,

• the differences in jail versus prison sanctioning decisions, and

• the feasibility of simplifying the guidelines while maintaining statistical power of the sentencing models.

10

Research Proposal

Study the possibility of revising worksheets to reflect current definition of a prison inmate:

• Section A- In/Out (Incarceration 1 Year or More)

• Section B- Prob. or Incarceration up to 12 Months

• Section C- Sentence Length (1 Year or More)

Study the possibility of reducing the number of worksheets from 3 to 2:

• Section A- Incarceration In/Out

• Section B- Sentence Length

Driven by the data

11

Data Source(s)

Sentencing analysis utilizes the Pre/Post-Sentence Investigation (PSI) data system.

PSI information is collected and maintained by the Department of Corrections (DOC).

• Probation and parole officers prepare PSIs and submit to DOC central office.

12

Data Source(s)

A PSI, however, is not completed on every felon convicted in circuit court.

• Cases that do not result in a prison term or term of supervised probation will not have a PSI.

• There is a new mini-PSI option (2006 General Assembly) that will reduce the amount of data reported.

13

Data Source(s)

When a pre-sentence report is not ordered, there is a considerable time lag between sentencing and preparation of the post-sentence report.

Due to delay in submission of post-sentence reports, data for a given year will be incomplete for a lengthy period.

14

Supplementing PSI data

Without supplementing the data, the data does not fully represent all felony cases sentenced in circuit court.

• Certain cases are more likely to go without a PSI (e.g., larceny).

• Potential for bias exists.

Since 1985, PSI data has been supplemented.

Method of supplementing data has evolved.

Today, sentencing guidelines data are used to identify felony cases that do not have a PSI in the system.

15

Research Proposal – Work Plan

With the Commission’s approval, staff would conduct this exploratory analysis over the summer.

Staff would report back to the Commission at the September 2006 meeting.