« A few GVRs and lots of cert denials in first full SCOTUS order list of OT 2024 | Main | "Pointing the Way... In the Wrong Direction: the Model Penal Code: Sentencing's Errant Approach to Restorative Justice and Its Role in Sentencing" »
October 7, 2024
Noting some interesting data around Colorado's Proposition 128 to restrict parole eligibility
Though California’s Proposition 36, the "Drug and Theft Crime Penalties and Treatment-Mandated Felonies Initiative," is arguably the biggest 2024 sentencing-related ballot initiative (discussed here), voters in Colorado also have a notable sentencing-related initiative to consider this fall. Proposition 128 in Colorado, "Concerning Eligibility for Parole," is described by Ballotpedia this way:
A "yes" vote supports requiring offenders convicted of certain violent crimes on or after January 1, 2025, to serve at least 85% of their sentence before parole eligibility, and offenders with two prior violent crime convictions to serve their full sentence before beginning parole.
A "no" vote opposes making changes to parole eligibility, thereby maintaining current law providing parole eligibility to individuals convicted of certain violent crimes after completing 75% of their imposed sentence minus any time earned off of the sentence for good behavior.
This lengthy Denver Post piece discusses this initiative along with another focused on police funding under the headline "Should Colorado spend $350 million on police and require more prison time for some criminals? Voters will decide." Here is an excerpt discussing Prop 128:
People sentenced to prison in Colorado typically serve less than half of their total sentences before they are released on parole, state data shows. State law requires prisoners to serve at least 75% of their sentences, but that time can be reduced further if prisoners maintain good behavior while incarcerated — a reduction known as “earned time” or “good time.”
People convicted of Class 2 felonies — the second-most serious felony in Colorado — on average were sentenced to 28 years in prison and served 13 years before they were released, according to Colorado Department of Corrections data for the 2022 fiscal year. That’s about 46% of their sentences.
For certain crimes, Proposition 128 would change state law by increasing the amount of time a person must serve in prison to 85% of their sentence before the person could be eligible for earned-time reductions or parole.
The change would apply only to a handful of convictions beginning Jan. 1: second-degree murder, first- or -second-degree sexual assault, aggravated robbery, first-degree assault, kidnapping, first-degree arson and first-degree burglary. Additionally, people convicted of a third crime of violence — a wider swath of crimes — would be ineligible for any type of early release and would be required to serve an entire sentence on their third conviction....
[P]roponents of the ballot measure say the extra prison time would improve public safety by keeping what Fields called the “worst of the worst” offenders in prison longer. But opponents say that position is not supported by evidence, and they say earned time is a powerful incentive for prisoners to participate in rehabilitation while incarcerated.
Prisoners who can’t earn good time will feel more despair and be more likely to participate in violent and dangerous behaviors, said Dana Mueller, a Colorado Department of Corrections release case manager. She spoke on behalf of her union, Colorado Workers for Innovative and New Solutions, which has come out against Proposition 128. “This would not reduce recidivism or crime, and it wouldn’t fix what is wrong in corrections,” she said. “Instead, it would make things worse, making conditions more dangerous both for workers and the inmate population.”...
If Proposition 128 passed, it would affect roughly 220 prison sentences annually. The financial impact would come in about 20 years, when the longer time served by some inmates would add to the prison population — increasing state spending on prisons by an estimated $12 million to $28 million, state analysts found.
October 7, 2024 at 05:43 PM | Permalink
Comments
I never understand why the date of conviction is made the cutoff date for changes like these. Under the ex post facto clause, it should be he date the crime was committed.
Posted by: Jacob Berlove | Oct 8, 2024 3:30:55 AM