« A morning of capital consideration | Main | Recent Ninth Circuit Blakely/Ameline remands »
November 22, 2004
Terrific in-depth coverage of "truth-in-sentencing"
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel merits great praise for a remarkable series of articles it is running under the banner "Locked In: The Price Of Truth In Sentencing."
Two of the main articles ran this week, with this article, entitled "Tougher sentencing law carries hefty price," focused primarily on the economic costs of Wisconsin's tough truth-in-sentencing laws, and this article, entitled "Door on early release closes tightly," focused primarily on the human costs of Wisconsin's very limited early practices. Articles planned for next week will cover collateral consequences and the restorative justice movement.
In addition to the main articles in the series, the Sentinel also has terrific companion pieces covering a range of additional issues relating to the harsh realities and human impact of tough truth-in-sentencing laws:
- This article, entitled "Inmates less motivated, wardens find," highlights the adverse impact of the elimination of parole on life within prisons.
- This article, entitled "Still seeking truth in sentencing," provides a victim's perspective on sentencing laws and practices.
- This article, entitled "Dueling effects," examines the relationship between longer prison terms and crime rates.
- This article, entitled "Innovative programming is part of strategy to ease law's problems," details new initiatives designed to address concerns with Wisconsin's truth-in-sentencing laws.
The series also includes a series of terrific graphics which can (and should) be examined closely; they cover the expected costs of truth-in-sentencing laws, the actual time served under truth-in-sentencing laws, and the relationship between crime and incarceration.
November 22, 2004 at 08:01 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e200d8350b202b53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Terrific in-depth coverage of "truth-in-sentencing":
Comments
What about exposing the "quota" portion of the Truth-in-Sentencing Act..I believe it appears in maybe Section 13408 or 13403 Item 3(c) - This is vague in my memory as to its specific section; however, I can quote you a portion precisely out of part 3(c) ....additional funds will be awarded if it can be shown that the county/state can show an increase of "10% OR MORE", within the most recent 3 year period, commitments to prisons. And then later on in that section, it states that there are not to be considered quotas as to African-American citizens.
Furthermore, PLEASE see if you or anyone outside the legal / county / judicial arena - you can obtain a copy of the "Memorandum of Understanding" document....It exists!!!!! And should be available through ones' individual county ---- It provides for someone from the judicial, medical, child welfare, police, and one other group to sign this document stipulating that they will work in a "collaborative" effort to meet the needs/requirements set out in the particular federal grant funding issues. It ties the "Multi-Disciplinary Teams" together; however, it's the best kept secret there is, to my knowledge. And the public has the RIGHT, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY to understand fully the impact of this document and its implications...Until some of these documents are exposed, the general public, more importantly, un-educated jurors have no reason to suspect that multitudes of innocent individuals are being subjected to trial based on "federally funded incentive grants, etc." THIS IS TRULY A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. I have witnessed this, personally.
Posted by: Brenda Higgins | Jun 6, 2007 2:37:47 AM
What about exposing the "quota" portion of the Truth-in-Sentencing Act..I believe it appears in maybe Section 13408 or 13403 Item 3(c) - This is vague in my memory as to its specific section; however, I can quote you a portion precisely out of part 3(c) ....additional funds will be awarded if it can be shown that the county/state can show an increase of "10% OR MORE", within the most recent 3 year period, commitments to prisons. And then later on in that section, it states that there are not to be considered quotas as to African-American citizens.
Furthermore, PLEASE see if you or anyone outside the legal / county / judicial arena - you can obtain a copy of the "Memorandum of Understanding" document....It exists!!!!! And should be available through ones' individual county ---- It provides for someone from the judicial, medical, child welfare, police, and one other group to sign this document stipulating that they will work in a "collaborative" effort to meet the needs/requirements set out in the particular federal grant funding issues. It ties the "Multi-Disciplinary Teams" together; however, it's the best kept secret there is, to my knowledge. And the public has the RIGHT, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY to understand fully the impact of this document and its implications...Until some of these documents are exposed, the general public, more importantly, un-educated jurors have no reason to suspect that multitudes of innocent individuals are being subjected to trial based on "federally funded incentive grants, etc." THIS IS TRULY A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. I have witnessed this, personally.
Posted by: Brenda Higgins | Jun 6, 2007 2:37:53 AM
What about exposing the "quota" portion of the Truth-in-Sentencing Act..I believe it appears in maybe Section 13408 or 13403 Item 3(c) - This is vague in my memory as to its specific section; however, I can quote you a portion precisely out of part 3(c) ....additional funds will be awarded if it can be shown that the county/state can show an increase of "10% OR MORE", within the most recent 3 year period, commitments to prisons. And then later on in that section, it states that there are not to be considered quotas as to African-American citizens.
Furthermore, PLEASE see if you or anyone outside the legal / county / judicial arena - you can obtain a copy of the "Memorandum of Understanding" document....It exists!!!!! And should be available through ones' individual county ---- It provides for someone from the judicial, medical, child welfare, police, and one other group to sign this document stipulating that they will work in a "collaborative" effort to meet the needs/requirements set out in the particular federal grant funding issues. It ties the "Multi-Disciplinary Teams" together; however, it's the best kept secret there is, to my knowledge. And the public has the RIGHT, AND THE RESPONSIBILITY to understand fully the impact of this document and its implications...Until some of these documents are exposed, the general public, more importantly, un-educated jurors have no reason to suspect that multitudes of innocent individuals are being subjected to trial based on "federally funded incentive grants, etc." THIS IS TRULY A TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE. I have witnessed this, personally.
Posted by: Brenda Higgins | Jun 6, 2007 2:38:00 AM
I am really confused about the truth of sentencing! It is so much about it on-line, however, it's dated so far back, I have no idea what is currently going on regarding it! I reside in Michigan! This is regarding my fiance! Can you please give me some insight on what's going regarding the truth of sentencing bill for Michigan! Although I am a student, also I am very curious about what info you may have to help me to understand what's going on with the bill for 2007!
Posted by: kimberely Kirksey | Nov 16, 2007 12:07:30 PM
Posted by: | Oct 14, 2008 6:26:41 AM
I'm also confused about the truth in sentencing laws. I have a nephew that has been incarcerated for the better part of 13 years. He's suppose to be up for parole in 2010 but although he has been a model inmate it won't get paroled for at least 10 years beyond that. His MR date is 2035 and that is what they base it on?? How can that be when the judge told him to just do well and he will be out in 15 years. Now they are saying no way. Can they go against what the judge says?? Is the doc God or what??
Thank you, Kay
Just a concerned aunt. Not a student, professor or prosecuter!
Posted by: Kay | Nov 14, 2008 9:47:46 PM
I am very curious as to the new proposed bill about all inmates who have been sentenced after 1999 to have a reduction in their sentences, something like 2/3 served/ 1/3 parole time prior to extended supervision (Probation added on to initial confinement) If anyone knows, please email me as to the new standards, especially if it is passed. Thanks.
Posted by: Heather Dam | Feb 24, 2009 10:55:13 PM
