Seeking nationwide sentence to fit crime: states move toward more uniform system of justice

Backers of the presumptive sentence approach frequently herald it as a "reasonable middle ground" between the present irregular system of punishing offenders, under which judges have wide latitude, and fixed mandatory sentences.

Nearly half the states, including some that have several forms of other determinate sentences for some offenses, mandate set penalties for certain felonies, according to Brad Smith of ABT Associates, the Cambridge, Mass-Based research firm that recently completed a study of the nation's corrections systems.

Sixteen states -- Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Tennessee -- have mandatory sentence laws on their books for some, or all, violent crimes. Several others prescribe fixed prison terms for drug pushing or repeat offenders.

Similar legislation is pending in several other states from New England to the Pacific.

And almost all of the 49 state legislatures that have been meeting this year have, or least had, on their dockets measures to toughen punishment for certain crimes, especially those involving repeat offenders.

In West Virginia, for example, a newly enacted statute raised from three years to five the minimum sentence for commission of, or attempt to commit, a crime while in possession of a firearm.

While it is too early in the 1981 state lawmaking year to gauge how many such proposals will similarly gain passage, observers note that in 1979, 18 states adopted tougher penalties for some crimes and last year at least a half dozen others did likewise.

And as a January Gallup poll seemed to suggest, the direction of public sentiment has not changed. That sampling found 51 percent favoring increasing by 5 to 10 years sentences for crimes committed while carrying a gun. At the same time, nearly 6 out of 10 questioned voiced little confidence in the courts.

Despite pressures for stiffer sentences and the almost certain need for the additional prisons this will require, legislators in many states are moving cautiously, outwardly voicing support for what might be politically popular but quietly marking time, observers William G. Nagel, president of the Lake Wales, Fla.-based American Foundation and executive director of the latter's Institute on Corrections.

Fiscal limitations in several states are forcing officials not only to hold off in approving longer prison terms but to delay implementation of measures already on the books.

Critics of stiffer sentences, like Michael Kroll of the National Moratorium on Prison Construction, contend that in some states the new laws have in some instances "resulted in filling correctional institutions with less serious offenders."

Boosters of longer and less flexible sentencing, like Massachusetts Gov. Edward J. King (D), hold that if additional prisons are needed to house an expanded inmate population, the necessary funds must be provided.

Governor King says he is convinced Massachusetts citizens would be willing to pay higher taxes were that necessary to build such facilities.

The National Law Journal, in a recently published study of sentencing across the nation, found that those convicted of felonies spent an average of 53 months behind bars -- the longest anywhere. South Dakota prisoners, on the other hand, averaged but 13 months in jail for their crimes.

Further underscoring the sharp differences not only in sentencing, but also in actual time served in prison for an offense, the paper reported that the average time served in Arkansas for forcible rape was 119 months, in contrast with a low of 14 months in Alaska and Nevada.

Convicted second-degree murderers in Massachusetts average 180 months locked up, while those convicted of the same crime in South Dakota are held captive but one-sixth that time.

Page: 1 | 2