Opening the Door for More: Assessing the Impact of Sentencing Reforms on Commitments to Prison Over Time

Abstract

Since the early 1970s, U.S. states have adopted a series of sentencing reforms that have substantially altered sentencing and release policies by limiting discretion of judges, parole boards, and/or prison administrators. The current study assesses shifts in year-to-year changes in new commitments and parolees returned to prison within all 50 states from the years 1972 to 2008. The study tests the theory that sentencing reforms resulted in increased commitments to prison due to changes in the structures of sentencing and not due to increased crime. Data was analyzed using panel regression with robust standard errors, fixed effects, and conditional change scores. By treating six main sentencing reforms as dynamically interacting, the results suggest that certain combinations of sentencing reforms significantly increase new commitments while the number of parolees returned to prison was not meaningfully affected. The analysis further indicates that the combinations that the reforms appear in at the statelevel influence the magnitude of the impacts of reforms.

Racial Differences in the Effect of Marriageable Males on Female Family Headship

“…Finally, three strikes laws recommend more stringent sentencing after the third felony offense. Table A.1 presents the years in which these sentencing reforms were implemented in each state [adapted from Harmon (2015)]. The table indicates that there are 40 states that adopted sentencing reforms, 29 of these adopted at least two.…”

“…Reforms in sentencing began as a response to the “law and order” movement of the 1960s and continued into the 1990s as a part of the widespread “tough on crime” philosophy. Over these three decades, the United States waged a dual war on crime and drugs that called for more stringent sanctions to fuel criminal deterrence [Harmon (2015)].…”

“…These sentencing reforms are sentencing guidelines (presumptive and voluntary), statutory presumptive sentencing, determinate sentencing, truth in sentencing, and three strike laws [Harmon (2015)]. Presumptive sentencing guidelines are defined by a range of sentences based on the severity of an offense and prior criminal records.…”

“…What is especially noteworthy is that poverty tends to be a distinctive characteristic of female-headed households. As early as 1959, the poverty rate for female-headed families with children was 60%, four times higher than the poverty rate for all families (U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (1960-2015, Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplements, Historical Poverty Tables). By 2011, the poverty rate for female-headed families was 40.9%, which is almost 30 percentage points higher than the poverty rate for all families [Gould (2012); U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey (2015) Annual Social and Economic Supplements].…”

Gender equality and the shifting gap in female‐to‐male prison admission rates*

“…Both measures originated from the "Impact of State Sentencing Polices on Incarceration Rates in the United States, 1975 to 2002" data set, downloaded from ICPSR. We rely on more recent publications to extend the data series to 2010 (Harmon, 2016;Zhang et al, 2009 minate sentencing laws control release and time served, whereas presumptive guidelines affect sentencing decisions (Stemen & Rengifo, 2011). Including an indicator of presumptive guidelines in particular helps us account for net-widening in sentencing decisions.…”