Truth in Sentencing
Encyclopedia
Truth in sentencing is a collection of different but related public policy
stances on sentencing
of those convicted of crime
s in the justice system. In most contexts truth in sentencing refers to policies and legislation
that aim to abolish or curb parole
, so that convicts serve the period that they have been sentenced to. Truth in sentencing advocates relate such policies in terms of the public's right to know
; they argue, for example, that it is deceptive to sentence an individual to "seven to nine years", and then release the individual after he or she has served only six years.
In some cases, truth in sentencing is linked to other movements, such as mandatory minimum sentencing
(in which particular crimes yield automatic sentences no matter what the extenuating circumstances), and habitual offender
or "three strikes
" laws (in which state law
requires the state courts to hand down mandatory and extended periods of incarceration
to persons who have been convicted of a criminal offense on multiple occasions).
In the United States
, federal law
s currently requires that those convicted of federal crime
s serve a "substantial portion" of their original sentence. This is achieved by eliminating or restricting parole and/or remissions. The first law requiring TIS was passed in 1984, and a number of states now have them. In 1994, a federal TIS law was passed: to qualify for TIS federal funding, offenders must serve at least 85% of their sentence for qualifying crimes before becoming eligible for parole. As of 2008, the District of Columbia and 35 of the 50 states qualify for this additional funding.
Bill C-25 creates three changes in the Criminal Code; now under s.719(3), generally the maximum credit a judge can give 1:1. Under s.719(3.1) and 719(3.2) a judge can only give a credit of 1.5:1 "if the circumstances justify it" and under s.719(3.1) the sentencing judge cannot give greater than 1:1 credit where the reason for pre-sentencing incarceration is either that person's criminal record or where that individual has breached their bail conditions.
The constitutionality of this bill was challenged under s.7, s.13 and s.15 of The Charter in the Ontario Court of Justice by Marvin Johnson. The court found that the amendment will survive Charter scrutiny provided the phrase if the circumstances justify it is interpreted in a manner that doesn't limit the granting of a 1.5:1 credit to such a high standard "that mandates a level of exceptionality that goes well beyond the ordinary experience of “dead time” or the penal disparities that typically flow from such pre-sentence custody". In this case, Johnson who was sentenced to 18 months for the sale of $20 of cocaine to an undercover officer, was given a 1.5:1 credit for the 12 months he had spent in pre-sentence custody and was released two days after his sentencing hearing to a one year period of probation.
Public policy
Public policy as government action is generally the principled guide to action taken by the administrative or executive branches of the state with regard to a class of issues in a manner consistent with law and institutional customs. In general, the foundation is the pertinent national and...
stances on sentencing
Sentence (law)
In law, a sentence forms the final explicit act of a judge-ruled process, and also the symbolic principal act connected to his function. The sentence can generally involve a decree of imprisonment, a fine and/or other punishments against a defendant convicted of a crime...
of those convicted of crime
Crime
Crime is the breach of rules or laws for which some governing authority can ultimately prescribe a conviction...
s in the justice system. In most contexts truth in sentencing refers to policies and legislation
Legislation
Legislation is law which has been promulgated by a legislature or other governing body, or the process of making it...
that aim to abolish or curb parole
Parole
Parole may have different meanings depending on the field and judiciary system. All of the meanings originated from the French parole . Following its use in late-resurrected Anglo-French chivalric practice, the term became associated with the release of prisoners based on prisoners giving their...
, so that convicts serve the period that they have been sentenced to. Truth in sentencing advocates relate such policies in terms of the public's right to know
Right to know
"Right to know", in the context of United States workplace and community environmental law, is the legal principle that the individual has the right to know the chemicals to which they may be exposed in their daily living. It is embodied in federal law in the United States as well as in local laws...
; they argue, for example, that it is deceptive to sentence an individual to "seven to nine years", and then release the individual after he or she has served only six years.
In some cases, truth in sentencing is linked to other movements, such as mandatory minimum sentencing
Mandatory sentencing
A mandatory sentence is a court decision setting where judicial discretion is limited by law. Typically, people convicted of certain crimes must be punished with at least a minimum number of years in prison...
(in which particular crimes yield automatic sentences no matter what the extenuating circumstances), and habitual offender
Three strikes law
Three strikes laws)"are statutes enacted by state governments in the United States which require the state courts to hand down a mandatory and extended period of incarceration to persons who have been convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions. These statutes became...
or "three strikes
Three strikes law
Three strikes laws)"are statutes enacted by state governments in the United States which require the state courts to hand down a mandatory and extended period of incarceration to persons who have been convicted of a serious criminal offense on three or more separate occasions. These statutes became...
" laws (in which state law
State law
In the United States, state law is the law of each separate U.S. state, as passed by the state legislature and adjudicated by state courts. It exists in parallel, and sometimes in conflict with, United States federal law. These disputes are often resolved by the federal courts.-See also:*List of U.S...
requires the state courts to hand down mandatory and extended periods of incarceration
Incarceration
Incarceration is the detention of a person in prison, typically as punishment for a crime .People are most commonly incarcerated upon suspicion or conviction of committing a crime, and different jurisdictions have differing laws governing the function of incarceration within a larger system of...
to persons who have been convicted of a criminal offense on multiple occasions).
In the United States
United States
The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district...
, federal law
Federal law
Federal law is the body of law created by the federal government of a country. A federal government is formed when a group of political units, such as states or provinces join together in a federation, surrendering their individual sovereignty and many powers to the central government while...
s currently requires that those convicted of federal crime
Federal crime
In the United States, a federal crime or federal offense is a crime that is made illegal by U.S. federal legislation. In the United States, criminal law and prosecution happen at both the federal and the state levels; thus a “federal crime” is one that is prosecuted under federal criminal law, and...
s serve a "substantial portion" of their original sentence. This is achieved by eliminating or restricting parole and/or remissions. The first law requiring TIS was passed in 1984, and a number of states now have them. In 1994, a federal TIS law was passed: to qualify for TIS federal funding, offenders must serve at least 85% of their sentence for qualifying crimes before becoming eligible for parole. As of 2008, the District of Columbia and 35 of the 50 states qualify for this additional funding.
Canada
In Canada, the Truth in Sentencing act, or Bill C-25 came into effect on Monday, February 22, 2010. This bill amends s.719 of the Criminal Code of Canada, limiting the discretion of a sentencing judges to give credit to individuals who have spent time incarcerated prior to conviction. Prior to this bill being implemented, as discussed by Justice Arbour in R v. Wust, credit for pre-sentencing custody was not determined by a 'mathematical formula' but many judges have frequently granted a two-for-one credit. This is justified by the quantitative and qualitative differences between pre-and post-sentencing incarceration. Most individuals who are incarcerated will not serve the full length of their sentence, and because time spent incarcerated pre-sentence does not count towards remission time, where a lengthy pre-sentence incarceration is credited equally to post-sentencing incarceration the convicted individual will serve a longer sentence compared to an individual given the same sentence without a lengthy period of pre-sentencing incarceration. Arbour also points out that pre-sentence incarceration is typically served in detention, in harsher circumstances than the sentence will ultimately call for and without access to educational, rehabilitative and vocational programs.Bill C-25 creates three changes in the Criminal Code; now under s.719(3), generally the maximum credit a judge can give 1:1. Under s.719(3.1) and 719(3.2) a judge can only give a credit of 1.5:1 "if the circumstances justify it" and under s.719(3.1) the sentencing judge cannot give greater than 1:1 credit where the reason for pre-sentencing incarceration is either that person's criminal record or where that individual has breached their bail conditions.
The constitutionality of this bill was challenged under s.7, s.13 and s.15 of The Charter in the Ontario Court of Justice by Marvin Johnson. The court found that the amendment will survive Charter scrutiny provided the phrase if the circumstances justify it is interpreted in a manner that doesn't limit the granting of a 1.5:1 credit to such a high standard "that mandates a level of exceptionality that goes well beyond the ordinary experience of “dead time” or the penal disparities that typically flow from such pre-sentence custody". In this case, Johnson who was sentenced to 18 months for the sale of $20 of cocaine to an undercover officer, was given a 1.5:1 credit for the 12 months he had spent in pre-sentence custody and was released two days after his sentencing hearing to a one year period of probation.