Perceptions about Sentencing and Attitudes

1
Perceptions about Sentencing and Attitudes
toward Correctional Alternatives in the Maine
Criminal Justice Professional Community
Sentencing Practices Subcommittee Stakeholder
Input Survey Rosemary Kooy, M.S, CSPSP,
NCSP Melissa Elliott, MMHC, MCJ
November 9th 2006
2
Purpose Goals

• To engage multiple and diverse stakeholders in
  the criminal justice system
• To gain an understanding of their perceptions
  about the goals of sentencing
• To determine whether they perceive the use of
  split sentencing to be effective in managing the
  risk and needs of offenders
• To determine whether they support the use of
  alternative sentencing practices and for whom
• To determine their understanding of
  evidence-based practices

3
Methodology

• Descriptive (Attitudes Knowledge)
• Cross sectional
• Random Sampling
• Paper Web-based format
• Ordinal Categorical Data
• Test pilot

4
Limitations

• Sample size small not representative of the
  population as a whole
• Generalizability is low
• Some undefined terms may pose threats to internal
  validity

5
Survey Design and Response Rate
Respondents by Survey Group
6
Participants by County
Participants were allowed to select more than
one county.
7
Participants by County
Participants by DOC Region
8
Participants by Occupation and Gender
9
Experience by Occupation
10
Reasons Given for Punishment

• Retribution punishment is justified simply and
  precisely because a person has offended against
  the legal requirements of society
• General Deterrence punishment deters potential
  offenders by inflicting suffering on actual ones
• Restorative crime control lies primarily in the
  community, victims are central to the process of
  resolving crime, restoring victims, community,
  offenders
• Specific Deterrence punishment is applied to
  convince the convicted offender not to offend
  again
• Incapacitation limits offenders ability to
  commit another crime
• Rehabilitation change in behavior of the
  offender produced by intervention (offender
  chooses to refrain from new crimes rather than
  being unable to)

11
Reasons Why Sentences Include a Period of
Incarceration (Importance)
12
Reasons Why Sentences Include a Period of
Incarceration (Effectiveness)
13
Why Sentences Include a Period of Incarceration
Comparing Perceived Importance to Perceived
Effectiveness
Scale 1 is most important/effective and 7 is
least important/effective
14
COMMON PRIMARY GOALS Based on the Risk/Need
Principles
Goal Public safety
HIGH RISK
Surveillance, incapacitation
Goal Risk reduction
Probation and treatment
Goal Punishment/ deterrence
Limited punishment, sole sanction
Diversion, short intervention
Goal Efficiency
LOW RISK
15
Recommending or making sentencing decisions
Important Information
16
Perceptions About Who Gets a Split Sentence and
Why
Scale 1 is most important/effective and 7 is
least important/effective
17
Twice as many split sentenced offenders entered
probation in 2004 and 2005 as those with a
straight probation sentence
18
Offense types by LSI
19
The likelihood of a split sentence correlates
with LSI Rating
Although respondents indicated that information
related to risk of recidivism was a top priority
in making decisions about who receives a split
sentence, in actuality a high percentage of low
risk offenders are receiving split sentences.
20
Split Sentenced probationers have higher
recidivism rates than probationers receiving a
straight sentence
21
Use of Split Sentences In Maine Perceived
22
Sentence Type
23
Most Important Factors in Recommending
Confinement to Jail
What factors are considered the most important
when recommending or deciding the length of a
jail sentencethe length of a probation period
following a period of incarceration?
Scale 1 is most important/effective and 7 is
least important/effective
24
Deciding the Length of Jail Sentence Agreement
on the Top Considerations
Scale 1 is most important/effective and 7 is
least important/effective
25
Deciding the Length of Probation
Period Agreement on the Top Considerations
Scale 1 is most important/effective and 7 is
least important/effective
26
Evidence-Based Practices Familiarity and
Adherence to Principles
27
Evidence-Based Practices Familiarity and
Adherence to Principles by Occupation
28
Evidence-Based Practices Familiarity by DOC
Region
29
Evidence-Based Practices Adherence to Principles
by DOC Region
30
Recidivism Rates by year
31
Effective Treatment Familiarity and Recidivism
Reduction
32
Effective Treatment Availability and Recidivism
Reduction
33
Evidenced-Based Practices
34
For you to consider recommending or imposing
sentences that include correctional
alternatives, what types of options are needed
which are currently not available?
35
(No Transcript)
36
Would you support offering a correctional
alternative program for the following?
Respondents indicated strong support for offering
correctional alternatives for individuals
convicted of theft and driving offenses,
including OUI. Respondents strongly opposed
(38.7) or opposed (32.1)offering correctional
alternatives to individuals convicted of sex
offenses.
37
(No Transcript)
38
Role in Recidivism Reduction by Occupation
39
Primary Findings

• Punishment and specific deterrence were the two
  most commonly cited reasons for recommending or
  imposing a sentence which includes a period of
  incarceration
• Overall, the seriousness of offense, risk level
  and prior record were seen as the most important
  pieces of information in making sentencing
  decisions.
• Although currently not available, risk
  assessment information was considered valuable in
  making sentencing decisions.
• Respondents endorsed that they would most often
  recommend a split sentence for an individual who
  committed a sex offense.
• Respondents endorsed that they would least likely
  recommend a split sentence for an individual who
  committed of a traffic offense.
• Respondents underestimated the nature and
  frequency of the use of split sentencing in
  Maine.
• Split sentencing is used more widely and
  frequently than perceived by respondents.

40
Primary Findings

• The seriousness of an offense is considered the
  most important factor in deciding the length of a
  jail/prison sentence. Risk level was still
  considered one of the top three priorities.
• Of those that stated they are familiar with EBP
  (31), a smaller percentage believe it is being
  adhered to or that effective treatment is
  available.
• In order for stakeholders to feel confident about
  making sentencing decisions which include
  correctional alternatives, they need to have a
  higher level of confidence in its effectiveness
  and availability.
• The respondents felt the following options are
  most needed mental health treatment,
  day/evening reporting centers, halfway houses,
  and substance abuse treatment.
• The majority of respondents endorsed that they
  believe they have a role in reducing recidivism.
  The respondents belonging to the victim advocate
  group (54.5) were least likely to say they
  believe that they have a role.

41
Recommendations

• Changes in the way Maine improves sentencing and
  corrections must be anchored in changing
  attitudes and philosophy
• Consider a statewide EBP curriculum for all
  criminal justice stakeholders
• Criminal justice stakeholders must become
  conversant in EBP polices and practices in order
  to share EBP knowledge with community members
• Become responsible for your own professional
  development
• Have discussions and reach common ground about
  the goals of sentencing the goals might be
  different for individuals with differing risk
  levels
• Promote the use of actuarial risk assessment
  instruments in assessing the suitability of
  sentencing options.
• Shift the current costs used for incarcerating
  and supervising low risk offenders to the
  development of a comprehensive treatment/supervisi
  on continuum to manage those individuals
  requiring high levels of supervision and
  treatment.
• Refer to the Sentencing Practices Subcommittee
  Report for further recommendations.