The Past Predicts The Future Criminal History And Recidivism Of Federal Offenders

The focus of this report is the 25,431 U.S. citizen federal offenders released from prison or placed on probation in calendar year 2005. Recidivism refers to a person's relapse into criminal behavior, often after the person receives sanctions or undergoes interventions for a previous crime. Recidivism is typically measured by criminal acts that resulted in the re-arrest, re-conviction, and/or re-incarceration of the offender over a specified period of time. Recent developments, particularly public attention to the size of the federal prison population and the cost of incarceration have refocused the Commission's interest on the recidivism of federal offenders. This report takes into account chapters four and two of the Guidelines Manual (ISBN: 9780160934896) in establishing the Commission's methods for evaluation. Scoring points for evaluation of the study group, and criminal history category identification. The Appendix comprised of tables and figures section offers the Study group's offender race, median age, re-conviction rates, re-incarceration rates, offenses categories, and more. Related products: United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines Manual 2016 is available here: https://bookstore.gpo.gov/products/sku/052-070-07703-4 Alternative Sentencing in the Federal Criminal Justice System is available here: https://bookstore.gpo.gov/products/sku/052-070-07686-1?ctid=1103 Federal Probation: A Journal of Correctional Philosophy and Practice print subscription available here: https://bookstore.gpo.gov/products/sku/727-001-00000-0?ctid= Take Charge of Your Future: Get the Education and Training You Need can be found here: https://bookstore.gpo.gov/products/sku/065-000-01446-7 Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, December 1, 2016 is available here: https://bookstore.gpo.gov/products/federal-rules-criminal-procedure-2016

Using fiscal year 2016 data, this publication provides sentencing data on offenses carrying drug mandatory minimums, the impact on the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) population, and differences observed when analyzing each of five main drug types. In addition to reporting general data regarding the use of mandatory minimum penalties, the Commission also analyzed the functions performed by drug offenders as part of their offenses. This function analysis provides a more complete profile of federal drug offenders and examines the use and impact of mandatory minimum penalties on offenders with differing levels of culpability. Discover more products on this topic: Recidivism Among Federal Drug Trafficking Offenders The Past Predicts The Future: Criminal History and Recidivism of Federal Offenders Federal Probation: A Journal of Correctional Philosophy and Practice print subscription Law Enforcement & Criminal Justice resources collection

All modern sentencing systems, in the US and beyond, consider the offender's prior record to be an important determinant of the form and severity of punishment for subsequent offences. Repeat offenders receive harsher punishments than first offenders, and offenders with longer criminal records are punished more severely than those with shorter records. Yet the vast literature on sentencing policy, law, and practice has generally overlooked the issue of prior convictions, even though this is the most important sentencing factor after the seriousness of the crime. In Paying for the Past, Richard S. Frase and Julian V. Roberts provide a critical and systematic examination of current prior record enhancements under sentencing guidelines across the US. Drawing on empirical data and analyses of guidelines from a number of jurisdictions, they illustrate different approaches to prior record enhancements and the differing outcomes of those approaches. Roberts and Frase demonstrate that most prior record enhancements generate a range of adverse outcomes at sentencing. Further, the pervasive justifications for prior record enhancement, such as the repeat offender's assumed higher risk of reoffending or greater culpability, are uncertain and have rarely been subjected to critical appraisal. The punitive sentencing premiums for repeat offenders prescribed by US guidelines cannot be justified on grounds of prevention or retribution. Shining a light on a neglected but critically important topic, Paying for the Past examines the costs of prior record enhancements for repeat offenders and offers model guidelines to help reduce racial disparities and reallocate criminal justice resources for jurisdictions who use sentence enhancements.

Sentencing Policies and Practices in the 21st Century focuses on the evolution and consequences of sentencing policies and practices, with sentencing broadly defined to include plea bargaining, judicial and juror decision making, and alternatives to incarceration, including participation in problem-solving courts. This collection of essays and reports of original research explores how sentencing policies and practices, both in the United States and internationally, have evolved, explores important issues raised by guideline and non-guideline sentencing, and provides an overview of recent research on plea bargaining in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom. Other topics include the role of criminal history in sentencing, the past and future of capital punishment, strategies for reducing mass incarceration, problem-solving courts, and restorative justice practices. Each chapter summarizes what is known, identifies the gaps in the research, and discusses the theoretical, empirical, and policy implications of the research findings. The volume is grounded in current knowledge about the specific topics, but also presents new material that reflects the thinking of the leading minds in the field and that outlines a research agenda for the future. This is Volume 4 of the American Society of Criminology’s Division on Corrections and Sentencing handbook series. Previous volumes focused on risk assessment, disparities in punishment, and the consequences of punishment decisions. The handbooks provide a comprehensive overview of these topics for scholars, students, practitioners, and policymakers.

Sentencing Law and Policy: Cases, Statutes, and Guidelines, Fifth Edition

All modern sentencing systems, in the US and beyond, consider the offender's prior record to be an important determinant of the form and severity of punishment for subsequent offences. Repeat offenders receive harsher punishments than first offenders, and offenders with longer criminal records are punished more severely than those with shorter records. Yet the vast literature on sentencing policy, law, and practice has generally overlooked the issue of prior convictions, even though this is the most important sentencing factor after the seriousness of the crime. In Paying for the Past, Richard S. Frase and Julian V. Roberts provide a critical and systematic examination of current prior record enhancements under sentencing guidelines across the US. Drawing on empirical data and analyses of guidelines from a number of jurisdictions, they illustrate different approaches to prior record enhancements and the differing outcomes of those approaches. Roberts and Frase demonstrate that most prior record enhancements generate a range of adverse outcomes at sentencing. Further, the pervasive justifications for prior record enhancement, such as the repeat offender's assumed higher risk of reoffending or greater culpability, are uncertain and have rarely been subjected to critical appraisal. The punitive sentencing premiums for repeat offenders prescribed by US guidelines cannot be justified on grounds of prevention or retribution. Shining a light on a neglected but critically important topic, Paying for the Past examines the costs of prior record enhancements for repeat offenders and offers model guidelines to help reduce racial disparities and reallocate criminal justice resources for jurisdictions who use sentence enhancements.

Predictive Sentencing addresses the role of risk assessment in contemporary sentencing practices. Predictive sentencing has become so deeply ingrained in Western criminal justice decision-making that despite early ethical discussions about selective incapacitation, it currently attracts little critique. Nor has it been subjected to a thorough normative and empirical scrutiny. This is problematic since much current policy and practice concerning risk predictions is inconsistent with mainstream theories of punishment. Moreover, predictive sentencing exacerbates discrimination and disparity in sentencing. Although structured risk assessments may have replaced 'gut feelings', and have now been systematically implemented in Western justice systems, the fundamental issues and questions that surround the use of risk assessment instruments at sentencing remain unresolved. This volume critically evaluates these issues and will be of great interest to scholars of criminal justice and criminology.