Washington State's sentencing reform in the early 1980s encompassed all felonies, including those resulting in sentences to prison and jail; the state also enacted the first and only sentencing guidelines for juvenile offenders. Several lessons are suggested from Washington's experience: sentencing guidelines can change sentencing patterns and can reduce disparities among offenders who are sentenced for similar crimes and have similar criminal histories; a sentencing commission does not operate as an independent political force, except when such delegation serves the legislature's purpose; guidelines are policy-neutral technologies that can be harnessed to achieve the legislature's will; in states where citizen initiatives are authorized, sentencing issues will appear on the ballot, attract political support, and make significant changes to sentencing policy; guidelines allow a state to set sentences with advance knowledge of the consequences to prison and jail populations; guidelines are likely to become more complex over time as legislators strive to respond to new perceptions of crime seriousness, while simultaneously paying attention to prison and jail costs. Twenty years ago, Washington State enacted what at that time was the most comprehensive reform of adult sentencing laws in the nation. The Sentencing Reform Act of 1981 rejected many core tenets of indeterminate sentencing, putting into place a sentencing system based on David Boerner is an associate professor at Seattle University Law School; he previously served as Chief Criminal Deputy with the King County Prosecuting Attorney's Office and currently is chair of the Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission. Roxanne Lieb directs the Washington State Institute for Public Policy; she staffed Washington's Sentencing Guidelines Commission from its inception to 1990. Thanks to the anonymous reviewers and to Richard Frase, Michael Tonry, and Janie Maki for their contributions.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract