Taking the Law Into Our Own Hands: Structured Sentencing, Fear of Violence, and Citizen Initiatives in Washington State

Steiger, John W.

doi:10.1111/1467-9930.00053

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Executives' pardon and commutation powers, rarely exercised but powerful when used, are not included in Figure 1. In some states, the voter initiative process has been responsible for the creation of threestrikes laws and other systemwide prescriptions of sentencing policy (Steiger 1998). In such states, a discretion compartment could be added at the systemic level for``the voters.''…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling Discretion in American Sentencing Systems

Reitz

1998

Law & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sentencing structures in American jurisdictions have become extraordinarily diverse in the past twenty‐five years. Any one punishment structure, such as the federal sentencing guidelines system, the guidelines system of a particular state, or the indeterminate sentencing plan still followed in many states, contains layers of complexity and a multiplicity of decision makers who hold discretion over sentencing outcomes. Increasingly, conceptual tools are needed to analyze and evaluate the similarities and differences across many systems. The author develops basic theoretical tools to describe the building blocks of various up‐and‐running sentencing structures, with close attention to the permutations of discretions that add up to define sentencing outcomes. Such basic conceptual tools can facilitate observations about single systems and can enable comparative analyses of numerous systems. Further, the author suggests that there are both descriptive and normative principles that can be applied to the structural machinery of sentencing systems. With increasing experience, we are learning that some such innovations work better than others.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling Discretion in American Sentencing Systems

Reitz

1998

Law & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When the public assesses the performance of the criminal justice system, the length and severity of sentences for offenders are front of mind (Roberts et al, 2007; Steiger, 1998). The public routinely evaluates sentences imposed by judges as reported by the media and considers whether the severity of the sanction is just.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How the Canadian sentencing system impacts policy reform: An examination of the Harper era

Puddister

2021

Law & Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During the Harper era (2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010)(2011)(2012)(2013)(2014)(2015), the Canadian government actively pursued criminal justice policy reform. Many of its efforts focused on reforming the Canadian sentencing regime by increasing the severity of penalties, including expanding mandatory minimums. Yet, Canada's rate of incarceration remains stable. The inconsistency between the considerable focus on sentencing policy by the Harper government and the lack of significant change in incarceration rates merits further scrutiny. This contrast between policy effort and policy impact also presents an opportunity to examine how the context of criminal justice policy in Canada influences the nature of policy reform. Taking up this focus, this article articulates the context of Canadian criminal justice policy and considers how this context shapes the policymaking process and policy reform. | INTRODUCTIONWhen the public assesses the performance of the criminal justice system, the length and severity of sentences for offenders are front of mind (Roberts et al., 2007;Steiger, 1998). The public routinely evaluates sentences imposed by judges as reported by the media and considers whether the severity of the sanction is just. Sentences that are perceived to be too lenient will draw criticism and will lead to calls for more punitive sentencing and less judicial discretion. Therefore, it is not surprising that governments motivated by a desire to appear tough on crime will focus their attention on sentencing policy (Beckett et al., 2018). In Canada, this certainly was the case for the recent Conservative government, led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, which held power from 2006 to 2015. The Harper government devoted a substantial portion of its legislative efforts to criminal justice policy in general and sentencing policy in particular. Many of the measures adopted by the Harper government drew criticism from different members of the criminal justice policy community, as many were concerned that the focus on severity in sentencing would increase the rate of incarceration and increase spending on criminal justice.

show abstract

Sentencing Reform in the Other Washington

Boerner¹,

Lieb²

2001

Crime and Justice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Taking the Law Into Our Own Hands: Structured Sentencing, Fear of Violence, and Citizen Initiatives in Washington State

Cited by 3 publications

References 2 publications

Modeling Discretion in American Sentencing Systems

Modeling Discretion in American Sentencing Systems

How the Canadian sentencing system impacts policy reform: An examination of the Harper era

Sentencing Reform in the Other Washington

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About