Then and Now: The Fruits of Late 20th Century Penal Reform

• NCJ Number: 133880
• Journal: Federal Probation Volume: 55 Issue: 3 Dated: (September 1991) Pages: 28-36
• Author(s): A M Durham III
• Date Published: 1991
• Length: 9 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Historical Overview
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

A significant number of penal reforms were adopted in the United States beginning in the late 1970's, and at issue is whether the country is better off now than it was prior to the enactment of these reforms.

Abstract

Crime was defined as a major issue during the 1968 presidential election. Although crime was somewhat less important during the 1972 campaign, presidential candidates still rated crime as a significant problem. The academic sector also supported the view that crime was escalating rapidly. By the mid-1970's, there was a fair amount of sentiment supporting the adoption of practical solutions to the crime problem. These solutions included Law Enforcement Assistance Administration initiatives. Perhaps the most significant reform was the adoption of determinate sentencing schemes. The apparent interest in parole declined as enthusiasms for determinate sentencing increased. Beginning with Maine, parole boards were abolished in 10 States between 1975 and 1982. By the late 1980's about 20 States had eliminated parole, and the percentage of prison inmates released under parole fell from 72 percent in 1977 to 43 percent in 1985. Although the public generally agreed that penal reforms of the 1970's had not been satisfactory, crime data did not uniformly support this popular view. National crime statistics indicate that crime was declining at the time the reform began to be enacted. The crime rate declined until the middle of the 1980's when it rose again. From 1985 through 1989, the index crime rate increased between 2 and 6 percent annually. The failure to achieve significant reductions in crime with the enactment of reforms is evaluated in terms of the incarcerative sanction, prison crowding, and fear of crime. It is concluded that determinate sentencing has increased the certainty of punishment and has reduced some sentencing disparity. Whether determinate sentences are commensurate with crime seriousness, however, is debatable. 58 references and 5 notes