|
|
| This sentencing switch falls flat |
| By lancasteronline.com |
| Published: 05/13/2013 |
|
A state Senate panel should be very careful in weighing a proposed switch to federal sentencing standards. The panel should consider the view of Lancaster County District Attorney Craig Stedman, who recently testified against the proposal on behalf of the Pennsylvania District Attorneys Association. Stedman said the federal system's flat sentences — in which judges order an exact number of months or years a defendant must serve in prison before parole is considered — are inferior to the state's system on two important counts: (1.) Pennsylvania prisoners have an incentive to behave themselves in prison because good behavior can shorten their sentences to or close to the minimum end of their sentence ranges, and (2.) those released remain on parole, and that means oversight, which guards against them re-offending. The recidivism argument is a strong one, given that public safety and the security of private property are obviously improved if those leaving prison do not return to crime after their release. A 2008 Rutgers University study of New Jersey's parole system found that 51 percent of parolees who got normal supervision during their parole re-offended, compared with a 73 percent recidivism rate among those who had completed their full sentences and were not subject to supervision after their release. New Jersey parolees who were subject to intensive supervision did better, with a re-arrest rate of 43 percent. Read More. |
MARKETPLACE search vendors | advanced search
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT
|
Comments:
No comments have been posted for this article.
Login to let us know what you think