Truth (In Sentencing) Hurts

One of the buzz-phrases of sentencing reform in past decades was "truth in sentencing." Quickly translated, advocates of truth in sentencing wanted to do away with seemingly long sentences that were cut short after the fact, largely by parole or good-time reductions. Judges would announce one sentence, then the defendant would only serve half (or less) of that time before being released. Truth in sentencing was a major motivator behind the 1984 Sentencing Reform Act that spawned the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.

This week, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is examining the impact of Wisconsin's truth in sentencing reforms that took place in 1999. Wisconsin's version is one of the harshest in the country, doing away with both parole and good-time credits (the federal system maintains good-time, at least) and requiring long terms of post-release supervision. Not surprisingly, the state's corrections system was unprepared for the swelling of the prison population that followed passage of the 1999 law. In part one of the Journal Sentinel piece, they examine the general mess that exists now in the wake of the reforms. In part two, they deal with one specific issue that's becoming increasingly problematic - what to do with older inmates who are ill and/or dying. Parts three and four are due next week.

Over at Sentencing Law and Policy, Prof Berman has links to many other articles that are part of this special examination.