![]() |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| History of the
Alabama Sentencing Commission and Timeline of Events Leading to Its
Creation |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Creation
of the Alabama Sentencing Commission
The
history of Alabama’s struggle with jail and prison overcrowding
problems and its reluctance to change unless forced to comply with court
orders, demonstrate the fact that our State’s criminal justice system
is one that has evolved based on short-term political expediency rather
than one based on strategic planning with an awareness of long-term
consequences. For two
decades, jails and prison officials have been operating by crisis
management, with little or no help from other participants in the
criminal justice arena. Although
commissions and committees have been established to help resolve the
crisis of the moment, all were formed on a temporary basis and most
focused on one aspect – the end result of a systemic problem, prison
and jail overcrowding. When
system-wide analysis was undertaken and long-range recommendations made
for the reform of Alabama’s criminal justice system, there has been an
obvious lack of follow-through for effective implementation. By
establishing a permanent State Sentencing Commission, the Alabama
Legislature has recognized that our criminal justice system deserves
continuous evaluation, planning and management from arrest, through
prosecution, sentencing, punishment and the reintegration of offenders
after the completion of their sentence.
There will be no quick fix to resolve the problems that have
developed over two decades, but with a cooperative effort and through
strategic planning, Alabama can establish a criminal justice system that
is fair, effective, efficient, responsible and responsive to the public. Precursor
to the Alabama Sentencing Commission:
The Judicial Study Commission’s Sentencing Committee On
January 23, 1998, the Judicial Study Commission (JSC), under the
chairmanship of Chief Justice Perry Hooper, Sr., created a special
committee to study sentencing policies and practices in Alabama. This
committee, charged with identifying and studying the strengths and
weaknesses of Alabama’s entire criminal sentencing system, met
bi-monthly during calendar year 1998.
During this time, they reviewed each area of Alabama’s criminal
sentencing structure, as well as other state and federal sentencing
models. In conducting its
investigation, the committee heard from local, state, and national
experts on current sentencing practices and reform efforts.
This broad-based group of criminal justice system officials
(judges, defense lawyers, prosecutors, corrections officials, district
attorneys, and law enforcement leaders) and victims’ rights advocates,
concluded that significant problems exist within the current sentencing
and corrections structure in Alabama that demand immediate attention.
As a result of their study, the JSC Sentencing Committee
recommended the creation of the Alabama Sentencing Commission as a
separate state agency, to serve as a permanent research arm of the
criminal justice system responsible for acquiring, analyzing and
reporting necessary information to officials and state agencies involved
in the sentencing process, the Legislature and the public.[1]
Formation
of the Alabama Sentencing Commission Pursuant
to the Judicial Study Commission’s recommendations, the Alabama
Legislature passed Act 2000-596, creating a permanent Sentencing
Commission as a separate state agency under the Alabama Supreme Court.
The enabling legislation for the Alabama Sentencing Commission
enumerates the Commission’s responsibilities to:
(1) “serve as a clearinghouse for the collection, preparation,
and dissemination of information on sentencing practices;” (2) “make
recommendations to the Governor, Legislature, Attorney General, and
Judicial Study Commission concerning the enactment of laws relating to
criminal offenses, sentencing, and correctional and probation matters”
and (3) “Review the overcrowding problem in county jails, with
particular emphasis on funding for the county jails and the proper
removal of state prisoners from county jails pursuant to state law and
state and federal court orders, and to make recommendations for
resolution of these issues to the Governor, Legislature, Attorney
General, and the Judicial System Study Commission before the 2002
Regular Legislative Session.”[2]
The Act provides that all changes proposed by the Commission
should reflect the following guiding principles of Alabama’s
sentencing philosophy: 1.
“Secure
the public safety
of the state by providing a swift and sure response to the
commission of crime.” 5.
“Provide judges with flexibility in sentencing options
and meaningful discretion in the imposition of sentences.” In
recognition of these seven ideals, the Sentencing Commission’s
enabling Act further provides that sentences should be the least
restrictive, while consistent with the protection of the public and
gravity of the crime, and the Commission should consider sentencing laws
and practices that will promote respect for the law, provide just and
adequate punishment for the offense, protect the public, deter criminal
conduct, and promote the rehabilitation of offenders. The
Alabama Sentencing Commission Begins Its Work Due
to the change in administration of the appointing authority, a director
for the Sentencing Commission was not appointed, nor staff or office
facilities acquired until after Chief Justice Roy Moore assumed office
in January 2001. The
Commission has now been operational for almost ten months, has two staff
members, a director and an administrative assistant, and has been
provided office space in the Judicial Building by the judges of the
Court of Criminal Appeals. During
2001, the Sentencing Commission met 8 times, authorizing the formation
of six work groups composed of commission members, criminal justice
professionals and victim advocates, charged with the tasks of gathering
research data and information concerning national and statewide
sentencing practices and procedures, identifying the deficiencies in
Alabama existing sentencing system and making recommendations for
improvement in the areas of technology, structured sentencing,
truth-in-sentencing, mandatory minimum and enhanced punishment statutes,
community based punishment programs and juvenile offenders.
Identifying the lack of reliable data as a major obstacle to the
study of current practices and recommendations for sentencing reform,
early in the process the Technology work group recommended obtaining the
services of a consultant to provide current statewide sentencing trends
until an in-house relational database analysis capability could be
developed. Based on this recommendation, the Sentencing Commission
contracted with Applied Research Services, Inc., a data analysis and
research firm, to create a comprehensive statewide database consisting
of a three-year cohort of felony offenders by combining information
obtained from the databases of the Administrative Office of Courts,
Pardons and Paroles, Department of Corrections and Alabama’s Criminal
Justice Information Center. The
work groups and subcommittees met 25 times since March of 2001, with
each group following a problem process analysis approach building upon
previous findings and recommendations of the Judicial Study
Commission’s Sentencing Subcommittee.
The methods utilized to bridge the gap between where Alabama is
now and where it should be based on the Commission’s goals varied
depending on how to secure the best information possible. They ranged
from out-of-state fact finding visits, open group discussions, surveys,
intense multi-group efforts by criminal justice professionals (judges,
district attorneys, defense attorneys, probation and parole, etc.), as
well as intrastate agency collaboration with other state agencies and
victims of crime. The
efforts of the work groups culminated in submission of their reports to
the Commission at its meeting on September 21, 2001, following which,
their findings and recommendations were reviewed and discussed
extensively by the Commission on October 18th and 19th,
November 30th, 2001, and December 4, 2002, forming the basis
for this report. [2]
In response to federal and state lawsuits concerning the overcrowded
conditions of county jails due to the backlog of state prisoners
awaiting transfer to the Department of Corrections, in May of 2001,
Governor Siegelman established a Task Force to provide short-term
solutions to the jail and prison-overcrowding crisis.
Recognizing that implementation of their recommendations would
provide only a temporary solution to a systemic problem, in its report,
the Governor’s Task Force noted that it was relying on the Alabama
Sentencing Commission to propose long-term solutions to address the
continued issue of prison overcrowding.
The Task Force also recognized that a major component of the
Commission’s work includes plans to develop the capability to more
accurately predict the consequences of new laws on the State’s
corrections system in order to improve resource planning and management,
and that by developing this capacity, the Sentencing Commission will be
able to help the state avoid further prison crisis in the future.
Governor Siegelman established as one of his goals the opening of
2,000 new beds within the next five to six years depending on the
data collected by the Commission.
In this regard, the Governor stated that, “(T)he Sentencing
Commission should be charged with determining the impact of its
recommendations on the population and report to the Legislature one year
after its original recommendations are implemented,” and following its
recommendations to the Legislature in 2002, “should be charged with
issuing a follow-up report recommending the number of additional beds
necessary to operate before the 2003 legislative session.” |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Timeline of Events | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||