Among the goals that I have as a legislator, one is to accomplish some modifications to the criminal justice system. A number of states are saving millions of dollars by implementing evidence-based practices to improve their criminal justice systems, and at the same time they have seen their crime rates go down.
While there are many different opinions about the need for changes to the criminal justice system, I believe we can all agree on a general goal of improving what we have. We have seen in Arizona as well as other states, that it is possible to save millions of dollars without risking an increased crime rate. No system is perfect, but I think we should examine what seems to be working well both from a cost-effectiveness standpoint and a crime-reduction standpoint.
Most of the criminal justice system procedure that we have now was established in 1978 when the criminal code received its last major revision. Now, 30-plus years later, we have some results to look at and evaluate whether those policies worked out the way we expected them to.
One thing that has worked well in Arizona and elsewhere is to grant additional powers to the prosecutors to implement deferred prosecution programs where appropriate. These programs keep nondangerous defendants out of the courts and out of jail. They get a chance enter a diversion program to correct their behavior and make restitution. If they successfully complete the requirements of the program, the felony charges against them are dropped -- there is no felony conviction on their record. Without the stigma of a felony conviction, their chances of getting a good job in the future will not be so severely limited.
But, if they’re not serious about wanting to change their behavior and they wash out of the program, then they will end up in court, possibly get convicted, and eventually end up in jail or prison. It’s sort of a self-selecting process where only those offenders who are not capable of self-correction end up in prison, and those who want a second chance can make amends and go on with their lives.
I’ve learned from my experience as a public defender that some offenders commit crimes as much out of ignorance or carelessness as from outright criminal intention; others, out of a failure to appreciate the seriousness of the criminal activity; and still others, out of an expectation that the criminal conduct will not be discovered. These kinds of offenders, once apprehended, will sometimes benefit from a second chance.
Another area where we can have a strong consensus among all stakeholders is to do a better job of aiding a successful reentry into society after incarceration. There is much that can be done in terms of assisting with employment, housing, and re-education of former offenders, as well as directing them to opportunities, resources and support available to them through nonprofits.
In 2008 the legislature passed the “Safe Communities Act,” sponsored by then-Senator John Huppenthal. Although many tough-on-crime legislators opposed this measure, it has proven to be very successful, saving the state approximately $36 million in averted prison costs in the two-year period from 2008-2010, while reducing recidivism by 28% in that same time period.
I believe there are other potential savings to be realized by making a few common sense changes to the state's criminal code. For example: once an inmate becomes physically incapable of being a threat to society because of advanced age or medical conditions, is there any reason to continue his incarceration? If he is no longer a danger to society, why should the taxpayers continue to pay for his room and board and medical services in prison? These incapacitated inmates, after appropriate risk assessment screening, could be eligible for release to consenting families and allowed to age and pass on in peace.
Another example concerns those who have spent 30+ years in prison. By some estimates, 80 to 85 percent of crimes are committed under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Once this kind of offender has spent 30 years in prison with a record free of bad marks, he has become a different person from the youth who entered prison. In fact, the number one predictor of recidivism is not social status, economic status, race, previous criminal record, or any other conspicuous factor. The number one predictor is age. As a person ages, the less likely he is to engage in criminal activity. 1
What we do with the person while he is incarcerated also needs to be improved. We need to make sure that there are sufficient education and work programs not only to keep inmates busy and occupied, but also to provide for self-improvement and self-motivation to accelerate their departure from prison. Prison is a stick, but within prison we need to provide carrots so that inmates can work hard to go home sooner by improving themselves and complying with prison rules. This only makes sense.
It is not my intention to throw out the criminal code and start from scratch. However, nothing is perfect. The original expectation behind long and harsh sentences was that getting all those criminals off the street would reduce crime and deter future offenders. After 32 years of practicing these policies, the results show that long sentences don’t have the deterrent effect we thought they would,2 and the cost burden of locking so many people away is becoming staggering.
In fact, recent evidence shows that crime is more effectively suppressed by identifying eligible offenders who are strongly motivated to self-correct, and requiring them to serve their sentence in programs or treatment under community supervision. Arizona has its own experience of seeing a 28% crime reduction over the last two years, and saving millions in averted prison costs.3
It is time to re-examine our code and tweak it where we can with proven alternatives for eligible offenders. It’s time to avoid wasting years of people's lives unnecessarily. And it’s time to improve public safety with these programs while saving the state millions of dollars by doing so.
These are my goals and I hope you will join with me. You will find many of the studies and observations from Arizona and other jurisdictions on this web site.
Cecil Ash
_____________________
1 Age and Recidivism: How Accurate are Our Predictions? by Brett Trowbridge, Ph.D., J.D. Washington Criminal Defense, November 2004, vol. 18 No. 4
2 Incarceration and Crime, A Complex Relationship, by Ryan King (Research Associate, Marc Mauer (Executive Director) and Malcolm Young (former Executive Director), The Sentencing Project, 2005
3 The Impact of Arizona's Probation Reforms - Pew Center on the States Public Safety Performance Project, March 2011
***************************************************
See the research from the PEW Center on the States, from the Sentencing Project, from the National Institute of Corrections, from the conservative group Right on Crime, from other States and Federal agencies. These groups have examined America's policy of mandatory sentencing/truth in sentencing, and found it lacking in accomplishing a reduction in crime or recidivism.
In fact, real-life studies suggest that alternatives to imprisonment for nonviolent offenders, have led to positive outcomes for the offenders, for their families, for their communities, as well as a lower recidivism rate. The additional good news is the amount of savings realized by state governments which have tried these different approaches.
See the article written in the Arizona Law Review by former Arizona Appellate Court Judge, Rudolph Gerber in 2001, about Arizona's sentencing laws:
On Dispensing Injustice.
See my discussion on sentencing reform.
Here is a list of Criminal Justice Reform Bills which I have introduced for consideration by the 2nd Regular Session of the 50th Legislature (2012).
Committees meet once a week on their appointed day. The deadline for the House committees to hear House bills, is the week of February 13-17. If the committee chairman has not scheduled a bill for hearing by that week, it will die in committee this year. UPDATE 2-9-12: None of the bills has been calendared for the committee meetings next week. However, the committee chair has the ability to revise published agendas up until Monday (2-13-12).
UPDATE 2-13-12: HB2522 has been calendared in MAPS and will be heard on Wednesday, 2-14-12; see the agenda. The purpose of this bill is to simplify the sentencing statutes so that judges are enabled to hand down a sentence that corresponds to the severity of the crime without being forced to mete out an unduly harsh sentence. The current prescriptive categories of sentencing options have sometimes forced judges into a corner by a technicality, where the law demands they MUST give the maximal sentence even though they may strongly object that the sentence is way too severe for the circumstances of the case. This bill unties the judge's hands. It is a safety valve intended to broaden the sentencing options available for a judge who has listened to all the details of the case, so that he/she can make the sentence proportionate to the crime. The judge, by the way, CAN STILL HAND DOWN a severe sentence where the circumstances of the case warrant it.
As calendared, we expect to see some modifications to the language of this bill.
This bill has not yet been released from the Judiciary Committee, and we will be watching for its release.
HB2521 community supervision; earned release credits MAPS and Judiciary Committees This provides incarcerated inmates the ability to earn a release credit of one day for every three days served by remaining free from write-ups and by abiding by department rules and programs, so long as the offense is not a serious, violent or aggravated felony as defined in Sec. 13-706. All serious and violent felonies will continue to require one day for every seven days, as currently provided. This is also a cost saving measure.
HB2529 board of executive clemency; commutation Judiciary Committee There was a time when governors granted clemency frequently as a safety-value to the occasional errors of the judicial system. Inasmuch as governors have refrained from granting commutations of sentences due to the political consequences, this bill turns over the right to grant clemency after a two-phase process to the board of executive clemency (all members of which are appointed by the governor). This bill takes politics out of the clemency process, and is itself, another cost-saving measure. I recently interviewed former president of the senate, Stan Turley on this topic. He completely endorses the concept of removing clemency decisions from the political arena. (Stan Turley spent 22 years in the
HB2531 prisoners; medical parole MAPS Committee This is a cost saving measure. It provides that when an inmate is incapacitated by a physical condition, disease or syndrome, the director of the Department of Corrections may approve, and the board of executive clemency may release a prisoner whose physical condition renders him unlikely to present a danger to the public.
HB2528 pregnant prisoners; restraints prohibited; exception MAPS Committee While there are no existing problems with the Arizona Department of Corrections' policies, some county sheriff organizations have been known to use restraints on pregnant women during labor, delivery, postpartum recovery, and transportation to and from the hospital. This is generally unnecessary to prevent escape or assault, but if it becomes necessary, exceptions are provided for in the bill.
HB2527 sex offender registration; consensual acts Judiciary Committee With over 40,000 persons on
HB2522 sentencing; minimum and maximum terms MAPS and Judiciary Committees This bill is the result of negotiations with a small workgroup consisting of prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges to simplify some of the sentencing procedures in our code and to grant judges more discretion. This bill will result in significant savings in averted long-term incarceration costs where it is not warranted for the benefit or protection of society.
HB2525 Arizona sentencing commission Judiciary Committee This bill establishes a commission which will review data, studies, and records from Arizona and from other jurisdictions for the purpose of reviewing sentencing practices and policies for best outcomes; and to make recommendations to the legislature on what works best to maximize the public safety, rehabilitate offenders, and create economic efficiencies in our system. There will be no significant cost to the state for this commission other than providing it with data. The commission will be composed of criminal law practitioners and those with the resources and experience to evaluate data and make recommendations. The Legislature will not be bound by the commission's recommendations. They are only advisory.
HB2524 life sentence; parole eligibility Judiciary Committee This is another cost saving measure. It allows those who were convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment before 1973 to apply for parole on the same basis as those who have been convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment since 1973, aka "Old Code Lifers Bill." All presently serving have been in prison more than 38 years. When I first introduced this bill there were 33 inmates potentially affected. Five have died and there are now 28 for whom this might apply. It does not release anyone. It just allows them to go before the Board of Executive Clemency.
HB2530 incarceration costs; municipal warrants MAPS Committee Presently, cities must reimburse counties for the cost of incarceration when an arrest is made by a city or town peace officer. This bill provides reimbursement to a county when an arrest is made by a county peace officer for a failure to appear on a city or town case.
*************
Evidence-based practices have led to remarkable outcomes with low risk offenders. And they are more cost-effective than prison.
Evidence-Based Practices What are Evidence-Based Practices? How are they applied in managing offenders? How does it work, what does it target, and why is it successful?
The National Institute of Justice has produced a series of seven short videos that answer these legitimate questions. The explanation of what these treatment models look like and why they work is offered by a foremost expert in this area, Edward J. Latessa, PhD, Professor and head of the Criminal Justice Division at the University of Cincinnati. He is a former president of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, a consultant with the National Institute of Corrections and author of 75+ papers and studies on this topic.
What the Research is Showing
See 12/2011 brief released by the Brookings Institution on how "more prisoners vs more crime" is the wrong question to be asking, in this policy debate. "Targeted efforts to improve the social cognitive skills of young people at risk and to modify the social systems that may contribute to or reinforce delinquency can reduce crime. The benefits of such efforts can far exceed their costs."
Along this same line of thinking, MSNBC interviewed Matt Segal, about what he sees happening in America today. "Incarcerating America's Future."