Tagged: sentencing

Prop 47’s impact on crime in California

When California voters passed Proposition 47 in 2014, the goal was noble: decrease incarceration rates for nonviolent offenders and redirect resources towards rehabilitation and public safety programs. The measure reclassified certain felonies to misdemeanors, thereby lowering the severity of penalties for certain offenses, and has been touted as a revolutionary step in California’s criminal justice reform. Proponents argued that this would lead to reduced recidivism and better community outcomes. However, a decade later, the reality is far from the success story many hoped for. A recent paper by the Manhattan Institute discusses some of the ways in which Prop. 47 has negatively impacted public safety and health and put strain on county resources.

Continue reading . . .

Decoding Prop 47: What recent audit findings reveal about the impact in San Bernardino and Riverside counties

If you’ve been following California’s criminal justice reforms, you’re likely familiar with Proposition 47. Passed in 2014, Prop. 47 reclassified certain nonviolent offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, with the main goal of alleviating pressures on the state’s prison system by decreasing incarceration rates for nonviolent crimes. Reclassified offenses include drug possession, forgery, as well as instances of burglary, theft, and shoplifting wherein the stolen property amounts to less than $950.

Proponents believe that reducing incarceration rates for nonviolent offenses can lead to better rehabilitation outcomes and more efficient use of public resources, while critics argue that it has caused an increase in theft and drug-related crimes as well as an increase in reoffending. A recent audit by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee delves into how this measure has played out in San Bernardino and Riverside counties. In this post, I’ll break down the key takeaways from this extensive audit.

Continue reading . . .

Recidivism trends in California: New CDCR report

Recidivism rates are down, according to a new report by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). In a press release accompanying the report, they state that “the report marks the second year of data showing the effects of the passage of Proposition 57, and the findings point to lower recidivism rates for those who earned credits from participation and completion of rehabilitative programming.”  But this statement is misleading. While the data showed a slight decrease in recidivism rates, correlation does not equal causation, and this would be an overly simplistic interpretation of the data. There are other factors that could have contributed to recidivism rates, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, which influenced crime rates and caused many court closures and temporary suspensions of intakes and transfers to CDCR, which likely influenced recidivism measures in this report. The report did not rigorously evaluate the impacts of Prop 57, and therefore, the findings are not sufficient to demonstrate a casual relationship between Prop 57 and reduced recidivism rates. Continue reading . . .

No compelling evidence of racial bias in sentencing, per new meta-analysis

The question of racial bias in the criminal justice system is a highly debated issue. In recent years, it has become a common belief that the criminal justice system is racially biased, wherein black and Latino defendants receive harsher sentences than whites or Asian defendants. But the empirical research does not fully support these perceptions, according to a recently published meta-analysis (note: a subscription is required for access).

Continue reading . . .

Prop. 57 and Recidivism: Unveiling the Reality Behind CDCR Claims

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) recently released a report revealing a 3% decrease in recidivism among inmates who were released the year following enactment of Proposition 57. This legislation, known as the Public Safety and Rehabilitation Act of 2016, aimed to reduce sentences for inmates participating in rehabilitation programs. CDCR Secretary Jeff Macomber hailed the report as evidence of improved public safety, citing Prop 57 programs as the primary reason for the decrease. However, a closer examination by CJLF raises doubts about these claims. In our newly-released Research in Brief report, we note how the CDCR’s report lacks the necessary rigor to support Macomber’s claim.

Continue reading . . .

A commentary on CCJ’s recommendations for sentencing reform

In Spring 2022, the Council on Criminal Justice (CCJ) launched a Task Force on Long Sentences with the aim of assessing our nation’s use of long prison terms (i.e., 10+ years) and the impact on public safety and justice. Most recently, the Task Force released a report detailing their 14 recommendations about how to reduce mass incarceration without negatively impacting public safety.

The recommendations are questionable, though, as they seem overly optimistic about the state of the research. For example, they propose various alternatives to incarceration that are supposedly effective, though they make the research sound much more conclusive than it actually is. Perhaps they ought to be reminded of the old adage: “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is.” In this post, I will highlight some of the more controversial “recommendations” and provide some points for consideration. In a future post, I will critically assess each recommendation in more detail and provide additional points for consideration.

Continue reading . . .

The problem with reducing reliance on incarceration: A commentary on Vera’s “new paradigm” on sentencing

The United States should move away from incarceration and ultimately work toward a system that creates “real safety,” according to a new, widely circulated report from the Vera Institute of Justice. In the report, the authors claim that severe sentences do not deter crime nor help survivors of crime heal, and therefore are not achieving their intended purpose. However, the argument seems to be rooted in emotion rather than facts. The research actually presents a more nuanced picture.

The controversy regarding incarceration is not new, and has remained a major topic of debate in recent years. Clearly, there are many different opinions regarding the utility of incarceration and its effectiveness, many of which are emotionally-driven and not rooted in facts. Rather, the research on incarceration presents a very nuanced picture. It is simply naive to think that any one policy would be 100% effective or 0% effective, and these types of “all-or-nothing” arguments are often rooted in emotion rather than facts.

In this post, I’ll give an overview of the lengthy report’s executive summary and give my thoughts regarding their key points. Stay tuned for part two of this post, where I will perform a deeper assessment of the report in its entirety.

Continue reading . . .

Krasner insists that his policies are “working,” seemingly unconcerned about homicide rates

Over the last several years, the progressive prosecutor movement has grown in popularity, with more and more policy changes reducing penalties for certain crimes. A common theme is for district attorneys to restrict prosecutions for certain offenses, and to reduce the severity of punishments for cases that are prosecuted.

One example is Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner, who has been dismissing more and more cases each year, despite the fact that the city recently reached its highest murder rate in history. He thinks that his approach is “working,” per a recent local news interview (originally reported by Heather McDonald in the Daily Mail and summarized in a CJLF post). In the interview, he incessently denied that his policies have negative consequences and was seemingly unconcerned about the homicide increase.

The sheer fact that homicides have increased in Philadelphia every year of Krasner’s term should be cause for concern. Not surprisingly, a deep dive into the research confirms that Krasner’s policies are at least partially to blame for the increase in homicides in Philadelphia.

Continue reading . . .

What do federal firearms offenses really look like?

A recent report from the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) published this month provided in-depth information on federal firearms offenders sentenced in 2021 under the primary firearms guideline, §2K2.1. This report is part of a larger series that examines various aspects of firearms offenses, such as mandatory minimum penalties and firearms offenders’ recidivism rates. USSC’s past research has found that firearms offenders are generally younger, have more extensive criminal histories, are more likely to recidivate, and are more likely to engage in violent criminal behavior. The number of firearms offenses has risen in recent years, and this report provides details that may be useful to policymakers. Continue reading . . .

Sentence length and recidivism: An updated review of the research

Back in May 2021, we released a comprehensive research review examining the literature on the relationship between length of incarceration and recidivism. To date, this paper is the most comprehensive literature review on the topic. Over the last several months though, we have made some important updates and revisions. The updated version is now available via the Social Science Research Network.

Continue reading . . .