Revising Connecticut's Sentencing Laws - An Impact Assessment

• NCJ Number: 78247
• Author(s): G P Falkin; G S Funke; B L Wayson
• Date Published: 1981
• Length: 106 pages
• Corporate Author: Connecticut Dept of Correction
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This report assesses the impact of Connecticut's new determinate sentencing law on the State's prison population and correctional costs.

Abstract

There are four features of Public Act 80 - 442 which will probably affect prison facilities and resources: sentences are changed from indeterminate to fixed terms within a specific range; mandatory minimum sentences are prescribed for certain offenses; longer sentences are mandated for persistent offenders; and good time allowances are reduced slightly. Because it is impossible to predict accurately all effects of the new law, this study developed scenarios to describe various ways in which judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys could respond to the statutes. The following plausible reactions to fixed sentences were considered: judges will revise their practices so that effective sentences remain unchanged, plea bargaining will increase, and judges will affix tougher sentences. Under mandatory minimum sentencing, two scenarios could result: judges will impose the required mandatory prison terms or trial and plea bargaining will increase as offenders try to avoid the mandatory sentence. Using base figures prepared by the Task Force on Prison and Jail Overcrowding, this study concluded that fixed sentences would not raise the prison population while mandatory minimum sentencing could increase that population by 317 over the 1985 level estimated by the task force. The population increase from the persistent felon section probably would be insignificant, largely because judges already sentence most habitual offenders to prison. The impact of the good time provision would not be felt until 1986 and is unlikely to be substantial. In projecting costs, four options were explored: additional operating expenses for increased populations at existing institutions; adding capacity at existing institutions; converting other facilities to correctional uses; and constructing and operating new prisons. Because Connecticut's prisons are currently overcrowded, the first option is unavailable and the second could not completely accommodate even 317 extra prisoners. Thus, construction programs will be necessary and will increase operating costs and capital expenditure projections substantially. Policymakers should examine options which are less costly and equally effective, such as community-based corrections and alternatives to pretrial incarceration. Statistical tables and 7 footnotes are provided. The appendixes describe a cost model for estimating the resource impact of the sentencing laws and a method for projecting future prison population. A legal review of the determinate sentencing law is included.