1 / 14

Review of Guidelines Worksheet Structure – Data Analysis

This study explores the evolving definitions of prison sentences from 1990 to 2003, focusing on the inconsistencies between the current sentencing guidelines and the definitions utilized by the Virginia Department of Corrections. The research aims to analyze the impact of these discrepancies on jail versus prison sanctioning decisions, assess nonviolent risk assessment recommendations, and investigate the feasibility of simplifying the guidelines while maintaining their statistical integrity. The paper proposes potential revisions in worksheet structures that align with updated definitions and enhances clarity for sentencing recommendations.

xia
Download Presentation

Review of Guidelines Worksheet Structure – Data Analysis

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Review of Guidelines Worksheet Structure – Data Analysis

  2. Definition of a Prison Sentence Has Changed 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 Abolition of parole Prison - more than 6 mos. Jail - 6 mos. or less Prison* - 1 yr. or more Jail* - 12 mos. or less Prison - 1 yr. or more Jail - 12 mos. or less Prison - more than 2 yrs. Jail - 2 yrs. or less Prison - 1 yr. or more Jail - less than 1 yr. Structure of current guidelines * policy of Virginia Department of Corrections

  3. Current Sentencing Guidelines Structure Conviction Section A: Incarceration > 6 months Yes/No Recommendation No Yes Section C: Sentence Length Recommendation - Incarceration > 6 months Section B: Probation or Incarceration up to 6 months Recommendation Probation Incarceration Up to 6 months

  4. Study Objectives • Staff is conducting exploratory analysis to examine: • the impact of the inconsistency between the structure of the guidelines and the definition of a prison sentence, • the differences in jail versus prison sanctioning decisions, • the impact of nonviolent risk assessment recommendations on sentencing decisions, and • the feasibility of simplifying the guidelines while maintaining statistical power of the sentencing models. This leads to a consideration of different worksheet structures.

  5. Exploration of Different Worksheet Structures • Study the possibility of revising worksheets to reflect current definition of a prison inmate: • Section A- In/Out (Incarceration 1 Year or More) • Section B- Prob. or Incarceration up to 12 Months • Section C- Sentence Length (1 Year or More) • Study the possibility of reducing the number of worksheets from 3 to 2: • Section A- Incarceration In/Out • Section B- Sentence Length • Driven by historical sentencing data

  6. Data Analysis • Staff is utilizing FY1999 – FY2003 Pre/Post-Sentence Investigation (PSI) data • FY2003 is complete • Only truth-in-sentencing cases are included • Analysis is being conducted by guidelines offense group • First group analyzed was Schedule I/II drugs: • Make up 32% of all guidelines cases • Disposition and sentence length vary widely by primary offense

  7. FY1999-2003 Drug Schedule I/II PSI Cases Analyzed *Held out of analysis due to extremely high incarceration rate

  8. Predictive Power of Disposition Models

  9. Extralegal Factors Which Predict Disposition Outcome • Jury trial • Pre-trial status • Male offender • Nonwhite offender • Educational level • Drug abuse apparent • Committed for mental health treatment • Judicial region and circuit

  10. Legal Factors Which Predict Disposition Outcome • Primary offense* • Primary offense additional counts* • Additional offenses* • Knife or firearm in possession at time of offense* • Mandatory firearm conviction for current event* • Prior convictions/adjudications* • Number of prior incarcerations* • Number of prior felony drug convictions* * On current Drug Schedule I/II Section A worksheet

  11. Legal Factors Which Predict Disposition Outcome (cont.) • Number of prior felony person convictions • Number of prior felony property convictions • Number of prior probation/parole revocations • Drug type/amount (1 gm or more of meth, cocaine, heroin) • Possession + 2 or more prior Schedule I/II felonies* • Legal restraint* • Number of prior misdemeanor convictions * On current Drug Schedule I/II Section A worksheet

  12. Exploration of Different Worksheet Structures in Drug Schedule I/II Cases • Is it feasible to reduce the number of worksheets from 3 to 2? • A proposed sentencing model incorporating the legal factors was developed. Cases were scored on the accompanying worksheet and their scores were compared with their observed outcomes. • Analysis showed that simplification of the worksheets can be achieved only at the expense of a loss in the statistical power of the sentencing model. • Predictive accuracy of the proposed model peaked at 64% - lower than that achieved under the current model. • Exploring the possibility of revising the worksheets to reflect the current definition of a prison inmate appears to be a better strategy. • Section A – In/Out (Incarceration 1 year or more) • Section B – Probation or Incarceration up to 12 months • Section C – Sentence Length (1 year or more)

  13. Potential Sentencing Guidelines Structure Conviction Section A: Incarceration 1 Yr or more Yes/No Recommendation No Yes Section B: Probation or Incarceration up to 12 months Recommendation Section C: Sentence Length Recommendation - Incarceration 1 Yr or more Probation Incarceration Up to 12 months

More Related