« Interesting new US Sentencing Commission analysis of possible impact of Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act of 2017 | Main | Interesting (and important?) new polling data on the death penalty »
March 22, 2018
Noting how Ohio judges and prison officials are sparring over law seeking to reduce prison readmissions
This new AP article, headlined "Judges, Ohio prison system at odds over bed reduction plan," reports on an interesting new difficulty within on-going Buckeye state efforts to reduce the prison population. Here are excerpts:
Judges and the state prison system are at odds over a new law meant to lower Ohio's inmate population by limiting the amount of time behind bars for low-level offenders who commit minor probation violations. At issue is a mandate capping the amount of time judges can send offenders to prison for violations like missing counseling appointments or committing misdemeanors. The law enacted last year is part of a broader effort to save money and reduce crime by lowering Ohio's inmate population. It affects inmates convicted of non-violent crimes such as drug possession, theft and fraud.
Under the law, judges can send inmates to prison for only 90 days for the least serious felony and 180 days for the next most serious. But some judges say the law is unclear and are sending offenders to prison for longer sentences, often a year or more, according to the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Judges also contend that the short sentencing caps lessen the incentive for repeat offenders to follow probation rules at all.
The state had counted on the law to decrease Ohio's inmate population by about 400 this year and as much as 1,100 next year, the prison system said. Cynthia Mausser, the prison system's managing director of courts and community, noted that the longer such low-level offenders are "sitting in prison not becoming better people," the more time they spend "away from those pro-social programs and relationships and connections" that could help them...
North Carolina put similar caps on certain probation violations in 2011 as part of changes to its sentencing laws. Colorado, Nevada and Tennessee have created stand-alone facilities for probation violators as alternatives to prison sentences, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Ohio's prison system sent about 300 letters to judges in recent months alerting them that they went over the caps. Prison officials don't have the authority to overrule judges, however, and so the longer sentences stayed in place.
In southern Ohio, Robert Chambers violated his probation for a 2017 drug possession conviction in multiple ways, including admitted drug use and refusal to enter drug treatment, according to court records. Chambers' attorney didn't return messages seeking comment. Adams County Judge Brett Spencer finally sentenced Chambers to a year in prison, and was then singled out by the prison system for surpassing the three-month cap. "For not trying to become productive citizens, we give them a 75 percent bonus," Spencer said of the sentencing caps.
Mahoning County Judge John "Jack" Durkin said judges know it's better to focus on offenders' substance abuse problems, help them find jobs and complete their education. But at some point, especially after several violations, prison must be an option "to protect the public and punish the defendant," Durkin said.
March 22, 2018 at 02:18 PM | Permalink
Comments
This system is similar to the attempt of Philly DA to intimidate judges into releasing criminals and into reducing sentences. The Philly DA and Ohio prison officials are employees of the executive branch. Such intimidation may violate the separation of powers certain to be in the respective state constitutions, and the uniformity doctrine in Pennsylvania. Uniformity is the similar to Equal Protection in the Federal constitution.
Posted by: David Behar | Mar 22, 2018 6:24:30 PM
I think more state legislatures will attempt to reduce corrections costs and because the costs originate at the county level and any legislative actions could result in serious conflicts with the county agencies and the judicial branch. The irony is that there are substantial costs at the county and city levels that also need to be reduced.
Posted by: John Neff | Mar 25, 2018 11:20:28 AM