Evidence-based practices and state sentencing policy: Ten policy initiatives to reduce recidivism

Indiana Law Journal

Volumn 82, Issue SPEC. ISS., 2007, Pages 1307-1318

  Warren, Roger K ^a  

^a National Center for State Courts   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 34648816684     PISSN: 00196665     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. TRACY W. PETERS & ROGER K. WARREN, NAT'L CTR. FOR STATE COURTS, GETTING SMARTER ABOUT SENTENCING: NCSCS SENTENCING REFORM SURVEY 10 (2006), available at http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/ Publications/Res_Senten_GettingSmarterReformSurvey_Final Pub.pdf.
2. Id.
3. Id. at 5.
4. Id. at 4.
5. PRINCETON SURVEY RESEARCH ASSOES. INT'L FOR THE NAT'L CENTER FOR STATE COURTS, THE NCSC SENTENCING ATTITUDES SURVEY: A REPORT ON THE FINDINGS 3 (2006), available at http://www.ncsconline.org/D_RESEARCH/Documents/ NCSC_SentencingSurvey_ Report_Final060720.pdf.
6. The terminology and supporting research is most frequently traced to Robert Martinson, What Works?-Questions and Answers About Prison Reform, 35 PUB. INT. 22 (1974). Martinson's methodology has been criticized, and it has often been pointed out, even by Martinson himself, that his research in fact showed that rehabilitation can work under the right circumstances.
7. LAWRENCE W. SHERMAN, DENISE C. GOTTFREDSON, DORIS L. MACKENZIE, JOHN ECK, PETER REUTER & SHAWN D. BUSHWAY, PREVENTING CRIME: WHAT WORKS, WHAT DOESN'T, WHAT'S PROMISING 9-18 to -23 (1998).
8. E.g., BRAD BOGUE, CRIME & JUSTICE INST. & NAT'L INST, OF CORRECTIONS, IMPLEMENTING EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE IN COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS (2004), http://www. crjustice.org/cji/evidencebased.pdf.
9. AM. LAW INST., MODEL PENAL CODE: SENTENCING: REPORT 36-41 (2003).
10. Id. at 29; see also JUSTICE KENNEDY COMM'N, AM. BAR ASS'N, REPORT TO THE HOUSE OF DELEGATES 1 (2004), available at http://www.abanet.org/media/kencomm/repl21a.pdf ("Alternatives to incarceration should be provided when offenders pose minimal risk to the community and appear likely to benefit from rehabilitation efforts.").
11. Michael H. Marcus, Smart Sentencing: Public Safety, Public Trust and Confidence Through Evidence-Based Dispositions, in NAT'L CTR. FOR STATE COURTS, FUTURE TRENDS IN STATE COURTS 2006, at 56, 58, available at http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/ KIS_CtFutu_Trends06.pdf.
12. Matthew Kleiman, Brian J. Ostrom & Neal B. Kauder, Risk Assessment: A New Approach to Sentencing Non-Violent Offenders, CASELOAD HIGHLIGHTS, Oct. 2004, at 1, 10-12, available at http://www.ncsconline.org/D_RESEARCH/csp/Highlights/VollONol .pdf;
13. see also BRIAN J. OSTROM, MATTHEW KLEIMAN, FRED CHEESMAN, II, RANDALL M. HANSEN & NEAL B. KAUDER, NAT'L CTR. FOR STATE COURTS & VA. CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMM'N, OFFENDER RISK ASSESSMENT IN VIRGINIA 1 (2002), available at http://www.vcsc.virginia.gov/risk_ off_rpt.pdf.
14. OR. REV. STAT. §423.525(7) (2005).
15. Marcus, supra note 11, at 56-58.
16. Id. at 57-58.
17. OR. REV. STAT. §182.515 (2005).|
18. OR. REV. STAT. §144.791(3)(a) (2005).
19. Unacceptable behavior, such as violation of conditions of probation, must be met, of course, with swift and unambiguous responses. But responses need not necessarily be harsh, and consequences should be graduated.
20. See, e.g, Tom R. Tyler and Yuen J. Huo, TRUST IN THE LAW: ENCOURAGING PUBLIC COOPERATION WITH THE POLICE AND COURTS (2002).
21. SeeRogeTK.Wanen,PublicTrustandProceduralJustice,37CT. REV. 12,16(2000).