1. June 9, 2014 Two Decades of Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia VIRGINIA CRIMINAL SENTENCING COMMISSION

2. The abolition of parole was a key issue in the 1993 gubernatorial campaign. Truth-in-sentencing Transparency Soon after his inauguration, the new governor formed a task force to develop a comprehensive sentencing reform plan. Task force staff conducted a thorough review of historical sentencing practices and time served under the existing parole system. Sentencing Reform in Virginia 2

3. Under the parole system, Virginia’s inmates were serving a fraction of the sentences ordered by the court. Average Prison Sentence and Time Served for Inmates Released in 1993 3

4. Goals of Sentencing Reform: Abolish parole Establish truth-in-sentencing (minimum 85% time served) Target violent felons for longer terms of incarceration Redirect prison-bound low-risk offenders to less costly sanctions Expand alternative punishment options for some nonviolent felons Reduce sentencing disparities Create a sentencing commission to oversee a voluntary sentencing guidelines system Adopted during a 1994 Special Session of the General Assembly, the sentencing reform provisions took effect for felonies committed on or after January 1, 1995. Virginia’s Sentencing Reform Legislation (1994) 4

5. Now that Virginia is approaching 20 years under the truth-in-sentencing/no-parole system, the Commission can take a close look at the impact of sentencing reform. Some analysis was conducted for the 10-year anniversary of truth-in-sentencing. New analysis can be completed to examine various aspects of Virginia’s sentencing system and length-of-stay. Two Decades of Truth-in-Sentencing in Virginia 5

6. 1st Degree Murder 2nd Degree Murder Voluntary Manslaughter Rape/Forcible Sodomy Malicious Wounding Robbery Burglary Sale of Schedule I/II Drug Sale of Marijuana Larceny 0%20%40%60%80%100% Truth-in-Sentencing Parole System 85% Parole system data represent FY1993 prison releases; truth-in-sentencing data is derived from the rate of sentence credits earned among prison inmates as of December 31, 2007 Under truth-in-sentencing, felons are serving at least 85% of the sentence ordered by the court. 6

7. Historical time served was increased or “enhanced” by 100%, 300%, or 500% for offenders with current or prior violent felony convictions Note: Certain burglaries are defined by § 17.1-805 as violent crimes. Violent offender definition includes including juvenile adjudications. Level of Guidelines Enhancement Current Violent Offense/ No Violent Priors Less Serious Violent Priors More Serious Violent Priors Under the truth-in-sentencing system, violent offenders were targeted for longer terms of incarceration. 7

8. Truth-in-SentencingParole System These figures present values of actual incarceration time served under parole laws (1988-1992) and expected time to be served under truth-in-sentencing provisions for cases sentenced FY2004 through FY2008. Time served values are represented by the median (the middle value, where half the time served values are higher and half are lower). Truth-in-sentencing data include only cases recommended for, and sentenced to, incarceration of more than six months. Forcible Rape Prison Time Served (in years) Prior Violent Record 6.7 26.6 None Less Serious More Serious 6.7 22.2 5.6 10.6 Violent offenders, and particularly repeat violent offenders, are serving significantly longer under truth-in-sentencing. 8

9. These figures present values of actual incarceration time served under parole laws (1988-1992) and expected time to be served under truth-in-sentencing provisions for cases sentenced FY2004 through FY2008. Time served values are represented by the median (the middle value, where half the time served values are higher and half are lower). Truth-in-sentencing data include only cases recommended for, and sentenced to, incarceration of more than six months. Sale of a Schedule I/II Drug Prison Time Served (in years) 1.6 4.5 None Less Serious More Serious 1.5 3.1 1.9 Truth-in-SentencingParole System Prior Violent Record Nonviolent offenders are serving about the same amount of time, on average, as they did prior to the abolition of parole. 9

10. Recommended for Alternative Not Recommended for Alternative N=6,062 N=6,981 N=6,473 Risk Assessment for Nonviolent Offenders* * Offenders recommended by the sentencing guidelines for prison or jail incarceration 10 Each year, roughly 3,000 low-risk drug, larceny, and fraud offenders are recommended for alternative sanctions.

11. Received an Alternative Sanction Did Not Receive an Alternative Sanction * Sentencing guidelines recommendation is for incarceration with a midpoint of one year or more Risk Assessment for Nonviolent Offenders (as applied to those recommended for PRISON incarceration)* Recommended for Alternative Not Recommended for Alternative N=3,178 (1,599) (792)(807) 11 Half of the low-risk, prison-bound nonviolent offenders are sentenced to alternative sanctions.

12. 12 Preliminary FY2013 Report Compliance Rates by Risk Level for Rape Offenders (n=74*) Very High Risk High Risk Moderate Risk 0% 27% 0% No Level20% 81% 53% 100% 51% 13% 7% 0% --- 6% 13% 0% 29% 16 15 2 41 Risk LevelMitigationAggravation Number of Cases Traditional Adjusted Range 94% 60% 100% 51% Compliance For sex offenders scoring above the specified threshold on risk assessment, the upper end of the guidelines range is extended.

13. Other Preliminary FY2013 Report Compliance Rates by Risk Level for Other Sexual Assault Offenders (n=173*) Very High Risk High Risk Moderate Risk7% 11% 0% No Level11% 74% 56% 0% 59% 12% 33% 0% --- 7% 0% 30% 42 18 0 113 Risk Level Mitigation Compliance Aggravation Number of Cases Traditional Adjusted Range 86% 89% 0% * Excludes Other Sexual Assault cases missing risk assessment and cases in which risk assessment is not applicable (e.g., child pornography and child solicitation offenses) 59% For sex offenders scoring above the specified threshold on risk assessment, the upper end of the guidelines range is extended. 13

14. The percent of violent felony offenders who were recidivists declined during the first decade of truth-in-sentencing. Sources: Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, A Decade of Truth-in-Sentencing, 2004 14 Percent of Violent Felony Offenders* with Violent Prior Records * As defined in § 17.1-805

15. A larger share of expensive prison beds are occupied by violent felons. Percent of State Prison Beds Holding Violent Felons* 15 * As defined in § 17.1-805

16. Violent index crimes are murder/non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery and aggravated assault United States Change 1991-2010: - 47% Virginia’s violent crime rate has declined since the early 1990 s and is now lower than any time since the early 1960 s. Violent Index Crime Rate in Virginia and the US Virginia Change 1991-2010: - 43% Source: Virginia State Police Incident-Based Crime Reporting Repository System as analyzed by the Dept. of Criminal Justice Services Research Center (July 23, 2012) 16

17. Property index crimes are burglary, larceny and motor vehicle theft United States Change 1991-2010: - 43% Virginia’s property crime rate has fallen since the early 1990 s, reaching levels not seen since the late 1960 s. Property Index Crime Rate in Virginia and the US Virginia Change 1991-2010: - 45% Source: Virginia State Police Incident-Based Crime Reporting Repository System as analyzed by the Dept. of Criminal Justice Services Research Center (July 23, 2012) 17

18. Virginia’s overall crime rate has dropped significantly, while its incarceration rate has increased by less than 9%. 18 Changes in Crime and Incarceration Rates for the 20 States with the Largest Drops in the Crime Rates State Change in Crime Rate 1995-2012 Change in Incarceration Rate 1995-2012 Hawaii-54.0%25.8% Arizona-51.7%23.3% Florida-51.1%17.2% New Jersey-50.3%-23.2% Idaho-50.2%76.3% New York-48.9%-27.0% Maryland-48.7%-10.9% Nevada-48.1%missing data Utah-47.5%39.9% Oregon-47.1%83.5% Connecticut-46.2%4.7% California-45.4%-15.6% Illinois-45.1%missing data Colorado-44.5%34.2% Michigan-42.4%2.8% Wyoming-42.2%30.2% Alaska-41.9%18.3% Massachusetts-41.1%13.7% Virginia-41.0%8.9% Montana-40.5%75.5%

19. Virginia’s prison population growth has slowed. Prison Population Growth 19

20. Comparing states that calculate a three-year re-imprisonment rate, Virginia ranks second lowest. Note: Missouri’s recidivism rate excludes the release of parole violators who have previously been returned to prison for a violation of supervision within the commitment. Three-Year Re-Imprisonment Rate by State Virginia 20

21. NCSC National Center for State Courts Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States States with Sentencing Guidelines Systems MN MI VA 21

22. Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States MN MIVA 123456789101112 More voluntary More mandatory OH WI MO AL DC TN AR LA DE UT VA AK MA MD MI PA OR KS WA MN NC A Continuum of State Sentencing Guideline Systems 22

23. Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States MN MIVA Examining the practices in three states, the researchers asked three questions: (1)Are actual sentences predictable using the prescribed elements and mechanics of guidelines systems? (2)Do more serious offenders receive proportionally greater punishment as prescribed by guidelines? (3)Are sentences under the aegis of guidelines fair in the sense of being non-discriminatory, thereby minimizing the effects of extra-legal elements, such as age, race, gender, and geographic location of offenders? 23

24. Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States MN MIVA Three criteria guided the evaluation: (1)Do similarly situated offenders as defined by the guidelines receive similar sentences? (2)Do the guidelines provide meaningful and proportional distinctions between more serious and less serious offenders? (3)Is there discrimination in sentencing? 24

25. Findings (1) Guidelines make sentences more predictable in determining who goes to prison and for how long. Predictability in sentencing outcomes is correlated with location on the sentencing guidelines continuum. More mandatory the sentencing guidelines, more predictability. Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States MN MIVA 25

26. Findings (2) Guidelines effectively limit undesirable sentencing disparity by reducing the role of factors that should not play a role in the sentencing decision. No evidence of a direct relationship between location on the continuum and undesirable racial, gender, age, or geographical disparities. Minnesota (more mandatory) and Virginia (more voluntary) show no substantively significant discrimination. Michigan (between Minnesota and Virginia) shows evidence of substantive discrimination. Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States MN MIVA 26

27. Findings (3) Guidelines make sentencing patterns more transparent by clarifying the factors to be considered during sen- tencing and how the factors are to be scored in terms of their gravity. (4) State officials have options when designing guidelines that allow policy makers to incorporate multiple design considerations about how best to shape judicial discretion. (5) Active participation by a Sentencing Commission is an essential element of effective guidelines. Assessing Consistency And Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States MN MIVA 27