“There is a world of difference between
|
Alert: 5/18/2016
Evidence Based Release A proposal is being made to the Utah Legislature for focusing the parole release process on "evidence based criteria." This ties in well with Dual Mode Sentencing. Vision. Definition. Planning. Goals. Measurement. Reporting. Read more about it at Evidence Based Release.
|
Dual Mode Sentencing is a new framework for Criminal Justice, particularly felony convictions which result in a prison term. The purpose of Dual Mode Sentencing is to focus on the goals of the criminal justice process, recognizing that there are several reasons or motivations for incarceration, and that those motivations change with time.
Dual Mode Sentencing provides a better - more just, fairer system of sentencing. It is called "Dual Mode" because it is:
--- Partly Determinate, and
--- Partly Indeterminate.
The two parts of the sentence are meted out by the Judge at the same time.
--- The first part is for a definite time period for the convict to "pay his debt to society" for the crime. This part is administered by the prison on the order of the Judge.
--- The second part is indeterminate, to "keep the perpetrator off the streets" for as long as he is a danger to society, up to the maximum sentence specified by the Judge. The whole focus is to prevent recidivism. This part is administered by the prison on the order of the Parole Board. Unless it can be demonstrated by evidence based practices that the inmate is likely to recidivate, he is released from prison.
The Judge may say, for example, "I sentence you to 2 years in the State Prison so that you will pay your debt to society for this crime, and I give you a concurrent sentence of up to 15 years until you have demonstrated your fitness to be a member of society."
The factor that makes Dual Mode Sentencing different from traditional Determinate or Indeterminate Sentencing is that each part of the sentence is clearly focused on different motivations. It's not the same as Indeterminate Sentencing with a mandatory minimum, say, "Five to Life." Why? Because the "Five" is not necessarily only for debt to society, and the "Life" is not necessarily only to prevent recidivism. Indeterminate Sentencing is really confusing to anyone who tries to make sense of the rules. Dual Mode Sentencing removes the confusion.
Dual Mode Sentencing looks at the motivations we use for incarceration. Not the motivation of a perpetrator for committing crimes, but rather the motivations of society and the criminal justice system for putting people in prison and keeping people in prison. These motivations are then linked directly to appropriate responses. Though this requires a paradigm shift in the thinking of Criminal Justice professionals, once they understand the differences of motivations and their individualized responses, great benefits may be realized.
Dual Mode Sentencing provides a better - more just, fairer system of sentencing. It is called "Dual Mode" because it is:
--- Partly Determinate, and
--- Partly Indeterminate.
The two parts of the sentence are meted out by the Judge at the same time.
--- The first part is for a definite time period for the convict to "pay his debt to society" for the crime. This part is administered by the prison on the order of the Judge.
--- The second part is indeterminate, to "keep the perpetrator off the streets" for as long as he is a danger to society, up to the maximum sentence specified by the Judge. The whole focus is to prevent recidivism. This part is administered by the prison on the order of the Parole Board. Unless it can be demonstrated by evidence based practices that the inmate is likely to recidivate, he is released from prison.
The Judge may say, for example, "I sentence you to 2 years in the State Prison so that you will pay your debt to society for this crime, and I give you a concurrent sentence of up to 15 years until you have demonstrated your fitness to be a member of society."
The factor that makes Dual Mode Sentencing different from traditional Determinate or Indeterminate Sentencing is that each part of the sentence is clearly focused on different motivations. It's not the same as Indeterminate Sentencing with a mandatory minimum, say, "Five to Life." Why? Because the "Five" is not necessarily only for debt to society, and the "Life" is not necessarily only to prevent recidivism. Indeterminate Sentencing is really confusing to anyone who tries to make sense of the rules. Dual Mode Sentencing removes the confusion.
Dual Mode Sentencing looks at the motivations we use for incarceration. Not the motivation of a perpetrator for committing crimes, but rather the motivations of society and the criminal justice system for putting people in prison and keeping people in prison. These motivations are then linked directly to appropriate responses. Though this requires a paradigm shift in the thinking of Criminal Justice professionals, once they understand the differences of motivations and their individualized responses, great benefits may be realized.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is Dual Mode Sentencing?
Dual Mode Sentencing is a framework of criminal justice sentencing that provides a better way to accomplish the goal of keeping everyone safe from crime. In Dual Mode Sentencing the thoughts of the Criminal Justice professionals are directed to analyze their reasons or motivations for each specific part of the sentence. This provides a more individualized treatment of each inmate's incarceration. The result is a great benefit to all in the reduction of crime and especially recidivism crime. This white paper will help you understand how Dual Mode Sentencing is better than current practices.
Why be concerned about Sentencing?
The system in place is good. The people involved in providing criminal justice are (for the most part) caring and dedicated professionals who do their jobs. But the program could be better. One major indicator that we are not doing as well as we could is the high rate of recidivism - repeat crime by those released from prison. Recidivism crime affects all of society. It should be much lower. Dual Mode Sentencing is an approach to reducing recidivism by adjusting the framework of how the criminal justice system operates. By changing sentencing, the courts, the prisons and the parole boards adopt a different attitude. Focus is placed on making decisions and doing those things that will result in a reduction in recidivism. This improves the safety and security of all of society.
Doesn't the system do this already?
No they don't. To improve on recidivism, decisions have to be made on factors that affect recidivism (obviously). But criminal justice professionals often revert back to looking at the severity of the crime when making a release decision. By failing to pay attention to factors that affect recidivism they make the wrong release decision. The error goes both ways, some inmates are released who should not be released, and some inmates who could safely be released are retained. Confusion enters into the decision process because the price for the debt to society is not clearly stated, and, when that time comes, it's not acknowledged to be satisfied. Whether the state currently uses Determinate Sentencing or Indeterminate Sentencing, the concept of debt to society gets muddled with the concept of risk of recidivism. Dual Mode Sentencing acknowledges and separates these motivations. By dispensing with motivations having to do with satisfying the debt to society, and considering only factors that affect recidivism, criminal justice professionals can make better release decisions.
No they don't. To improve on recidivism, decisions have to be made on factors that affect recidivism (obviously). But criminal justice professionals often revert back to looking at the severity of the crime when making a release decision. By failing to pay attention to factors that affect recidivism they make the wrong release decision. The error goes both ways, some inmates are released who should not be released, and some inmates who could safely be released are retained. Confusion enters into the decision process because the price for the debt to society is not clearly stated, and, when that time comes, it's not acknowledged to be satisfied. Whether the state currently uses Determinate Sentencing or Indeterminate Sentencing, the concept of debt to society gets muddled with the concept of risk of recidivism. Dual Mode Sentencing acknowledges and separates these motivations. By dispensing with motivations having to do with satisfying the debt to society, and considering only factors that affect recidivism, criminal justice professionals can make better release decisions.
Does this mean more time in prison for the inmate?
Possibly yes, but very likely no. If an inmate serves the period of time to satisfy his debt to society, and is not a recidivism risk, then under Dual Mode Sentencing the minimum reasonable time of incarceration would be realized. On the other hand, release decisions which are made too soon and result in recidivism just mean more prison time. The least prison time is achieved by making the best, most informed, correct decision. With Dual Mode Sentencing there are two sentences, but when used properly with separated motivations, total time spent in prison could very likely be less. To the taxpayer this means less bed space in the prison which needs to be funded. To society it means increased safety. Correct release decisions are a benefit all around.
Possibly yes, but very likely no. If an inmate serves the period of time to satisfy his debt to society, and is not a recidivism risk, then under Dual Mode Sentencing the minimum reasonable time of incarceration would be realized. On the other hand, release decisions which are made too soon and result in recidivism just mean more prison time. The least prison time is achieved by making the best, most informed, correct decision. With Dual Mode Sentencing there are two sentences, but when used properly with separated motivations, total time spent in prison could very likely be less. To the taxpayer this means less bed space in the prison which needs to be funded. To society it means increased safety. Correct release decisions are a benefit all around.
Is Dual Mode Sentencing constitutional?
Ultimately the constitutionality of a legal concept is determined by the legal review of a high court. Dual Mode Sentencing brings into question a constitutional concept concerning the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. It says, “nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." Specifically, double jeopardy provides U.S. citizens with three protections. First, you cannot be retried for the same crime following an acquittal. Second, you do not have to face retrial after a conviction. Third, you cannot be punished more than once for the same offense. On the face of it, one might conclude that a Dual Sentence is multiple punishment and therefore unconstitutional. However, case law in this area says that the prohibition against multiple punishment does not apply if the multiple punishment is authorized by the legislature. (Missouri v. Hunter, 459 U.S. 359, 368-69 (1983); Whalen v. United States, 445 U.S.684, 688 (1980); State v. Calle, 125 Wash. 2d 769, 776, 888 P.2d 155, 158 (1995).) That is, the legislature can prescribe that two parts of a punishment which are meted at one time are really only one punishment (for example, a fine and a time in jail, meted in advance of the start of either). Therefore, the conclusion is that if a state legislature authorizes the implementation of Dual Mode Sentencing, it would be constitutional.
This is a great concept, but what can I do?
1. Direct other people to this website so they can learn about Dual Mode Sentencing. (http://DualModeSentencing.org)
2. Contact your local senator and representative. Tell them you want reform in criminal justice to reduce recidivism. Suggest they look into Dual Mode Sentencing.
3. The next time you read about a crime, consider how your feelings about it may be categorized by the motivations outlined on this website. Recall that different motivations are best served by different responses.
2. Contact your local senator and representative. Tell them you want reform in criminal justice to reduce recidivism. Suggest they look into Dual Mode Sentencing.
3. The next time you read about a crime, consider how your feelings about it may be categorized by the motivations outlined on this website. Recall that different motivations are best served by different responses.