« Any new thoughts about criminal justice as Prez-elect Obama fills out his Justice league? | Main | Notable op-ed assails sentencing guidelines based on White acquitted conduct ruling »
January 5, 2009
PA Gov. Rendell calling to end parole for repeat violent offenders
This Philapelphia Inquirer piece, headlined "Rendell: Eliminate parole for repeat violent offenders," reports on the latest crime and punishment news from the Keystone State:
After a year marked by horrific crimes committed by repeat violent offenders, Gov. Rendell called yesterday for legislation to keep them locked up longer. "The parole system simply doesn't work for these violent individuals who use deadly weapons," Rendell told reporters yesterday at the Park Hyatt Philadelphia at the Bellevue.
"It works for nonviolent offenders," he said. "In 2007, 95 percent of the state's nonviolent 31,000 parolees were not rearrested. "But not for this dangerous group of individuals . . . who learn to game the system."
Rendell's effort would not change the sentencing guidelines that judges employ or the factors that parole boards can consider. Instead, he would require judges to sentence repeat violent offenders to specific, fixed terms, instead of ranges, in effect eliminating any opportunity for early release.
As informed sentencing fans know, the federal sentencing system and a number of state systems have eliminated parole for all offenders as part of modern structured sentencing reforms. In addition, the current draft of the new MPC sentencing provisions calls for a complete elimination of systems of parole. Against this backdrop, I like Governor Rendell's more nuanced approach here, which usefully seeks to distinguish for parole purposes between "repeat violent offenders" and all other offenders.
Of course, as in all sentencing proposals, the devil is in the details. Some defendants get sentenced as "repeat violent offenders" in the federal sentencing for illegally possessing a firearm after having felony record based on relatively minor state assault or drug charges.
January 5, 2009 at 02:45 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e2010536b46864970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference PA Gov. Rendell calling to end parole for repeat violent offenders:
Comments
With all due respect, Doug, I believe your proposal itself should be more nuanced. Certainly a person’s prior criminal record is important, but it should not be the only factor when considering risk. For example, how about age?
It is really ridiculous to ask judges to factor in risk at the time of sentencing. Risk changes. Some offenders become more dangerous over time; some less. How can anyone estimate today with a reasonable degree of accuracy what a persons risk will be five years from now?
That is why parole played such an important role, before its use became corrupted through factoring punishment in as one of its objectives. As a substitute, how about handing this responsibility off to a Risk Control Board that reevaluates risk periodically? Then grade the restraints to which people are subjected, based on the amount of risk that is acceptable.
Accountability (penalties or punishments) is determinate; risk is indeterminate. Deal with them separately. The most restrictive at any given point in time should control.
Posted by: Tom McGee | Jan 5, 2009 6:34:59 PM
Tom. You raise fair points but consider this. Is a prison environment a neutral environment in which to evaluate risk? I always cringe a little bit when I hear how someone was pardoned or paroled due to "good behavior" while in jail. It's easier to behave well when you are locked up 24 hours a day. The real test is what will you do when you get released and have to deal with real life all over again. That's the hard part.
At the end of the day, any decision about parole represents a throw of the dice. I find it difficult to blame those who error on the side of caution and prefer to keep people locked up. I wont claim that its "just" but it strikes me as a rational thing to do.
Posted by: Daniel | Jan 5, 2009 11:28:01 PM
Daniel, The real test is what will you do when you get released and have to deal with real life all over again. That's the hard part.
Once you have ANY criminal record, real life is much more difficult. The hard part is getting employed and establishing somewhat of a real life. What are a their chances when they never lived a normal life in the first place. Is there a life for someone with a past violent record? Or are they forever forced to live in poverty? I would imagine it to be extremely hard for a person to move forward. How long before you, yourself might commit another crime? The real world is hard, cold and VERY unforgiving. Being excluded based on a person PAST is ruining lives, young and old, and it's not going to get any better. Lawmakers now want juvenile records exposed. Giving youths NO CHANCE for a real life.
In the past, I was under the impression that parole was in place to over see and assist excons in need of employment, housing, mental health and some support and instill stability. I now, believe that may have been the original purpose, but, is now just tripping people up and racking up new and insane violations. Keeping criminals off the street because of past offenses is the norm. The sex offender registry's and it's insane requirements and restrictions makes you a prime target for reincarseration. It's the revolving door approach that is not working. In America many people who have completed their debt to society will never, ever be given a chance to get a real life in our society.
Posted by: Land of The Free? | Jan 6, 2009 10:45:21 AM
Daniel, I certainly share your concern about “good time” practices. I suspect we can agree that accountability (penalties and punishment) is determinate; risk is indeterminate. If the system is structured so the two are dealt with separately, then “good time” becomes more sensible.
Good time policies should apply to holding offenders accountable, where it is an appropriate incentive, not to controlling and reducing their risk. Simply behaving well while in confinement may have very little to do with a person’s underlying level of risk, as you suggest.
The same principle applies to plea bargaining, which is workable as to accountability, because it is determinate. But plea bargaining has no place with regard to risk, which is indeterminate. Just as with judges, how can a prosecutor know what a person’s risk will be five years from now.
I do not agree that parole is a throw of the dice. Of course, it is not possible to predict a person’s risk of recidivism with total accuracy. But it is possible to predict with a reasonable degree of accuracy within a probability range. Put simply, what’s the risk? It is up to policymakers to say how much risk is tolerable under given sets of circumstances. Think of it as something like insurance. As you say, that is the rational thing to do.
Of course, all of this calls for a more nuanced approach to deprivation decision-making, which includes sentencing. That means that some of our customary ways of thinking about this problem should be tossed out.
Posted by: Tom McGee | Jan 6, 2009 1:18:02 PM
Daniel, I certainly share your concern about “good time” practices. I suspect we can agree that accountability (penalties and punishment) is determinate; risk is indeterminate. If the system is structured so the two are dealt with separately, then “good time” becomes more sensible.
Good time policies should apply to holding offenders accountable, where it is an appropriate incentive, not to controlling and reducing their risk. Simply behaving well while in confinement may have very little to do with a person’s underlying level of risk, as you suggest.
The same principle applies to plea bargaining, which is workable as to accountability, because it is determinate. But plea bargaining has no place with regard to risk, which is indeterminate. Just as with judges, how can a prosecutor know what a person’s risk will be five years from now.
I do not agree that parole is a throw of the dice. Of course, it is not possible to predict a person’s risk of recidivism with total accuracy. But it is possible to predict with a reasonable degree of accuracy within a probability range. Put simply, what’s the risk? It is up to policymakers to say how much risk is tolerable under given sets of circumstances. Think of it as something like insurance. As you say, that is the rational thing to do.
Of course, all of this calls for a more nuanced approach to deprivation decision-making, which includes sentencing. That means that some of our customary ways of thinking about this problem should be tossed out.
Posted by: tom McGee | Jan 6, 2009 1:20:33 PM
i thought that obeying the law,was the right thing to do,but i guess it does not really matter.i had a permit to carry and a man jump out at me at a red light,with a knife in his hand,i raised my firearm and told him to get back in his car and he did. i thought thats what the permit was for but i guess i was wrong,the next thing i know i got two young yahoo cops pointing a gun and a shot gun at me and my wifes head.well i went to my hearing and the police drop the charges,i would of been approved for(ard) but because my x wife from phila,pa about 15 years ago said i was stocking her and herassing by phone, because i was dating a 20 year old girl. to get back to the story the d.a. would not drop the charges and wanted to give me 23 months in prison for obeying the law well my layer and i bargin him down to 1 month in prison and 3 years prole and 5 years probation,just for following the law. boy what a nice guy, and i cant find a job any where.and they call this the house of corrections what a joke.
Posted by: gary marko | Jan 30, 2009 8:05:17 PM
i would like to know why its so hard to get a sex offender out of priaon ofter being poraled and home plan ok it a year later and he,s still there this is his first offence and no one wants to help get him out i think everyone should have a secound chance and then if they mess ou it on them what do you think judy
Posted by: judy | Feb 13, 2009 1:15:41 AM
hello. my sons father was just sentenced in federal court to 48 months for the charge of carrying a handgun as a convicted felon. he then plead guilty to attempted murder, aggrivated assualt, and several other charges on the state level and was sentenced 3.5 to 8 years concurrent with the federal sentence. i was wondering how much time he will have to serve out of the state time. do violent offenders have to serve 80 percent of their time regardless? i've been searching the internet for hours looking for this answer. he used the gun in self defense but couldn't beat the gun charges on the state level which is why he plead guilty to everything. someone please answer
Posted by: giz | Jun 11, 2009 7:25:38 PM
