1 / 16

25% OF THE WORLD’S PRISONERS ARE IN U.S. PRISONS.

PROFESSIONALISM: WHAT IS THE ROLE OF AN INDEPENDENT, RESPONSIBLE, WELL-INFORMED, AND ETHICAL JUDICIARY IN ADDRESSING OUR CURRENT SENTENCING AND INCARCERATION CLIMATE? Fredericka Homberg Wicker Louisiana Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal Louisiana Sentencing Commission. THE PROBLEM :.

salim
Download Presentation

25% OF THE WORLD’S PRISONERS ARE IN U.S. PRISONS.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. PROFESSIONALISM:WHAT IS THE ROLE OF AN INDEPENDENT, RESPONSIBLE, WELL-INFORMED, AND ETHICAL JUDICIARY IN ADDRESSING OUR CURRENT SENTENCING AND INCARCERATION CLIMATE?Fredericka Homberg WickerLouisiana Fifth Circuit Court of AppealLouisiana Sentencing Commission

  2. THE PROBLEM: 25% OF THE WORLD’S PRISONERS ARE IN U.S. PRISONS. “TOUGH ON CRIME” AND “TRUTH IN SENTENCING DO NOT REDUCE RECIDISM. OVER-INCARCERATION IS BREAKING THE BANK. TODAY WE ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT WORKS.

  3. THE QUESTION: JUDGES HAVE “THE INEXORABLY CENTRAL ROLE” IN SENTENCING. WHAT ROLE ARE JUDGES ETHICALLY PERMITTED TO PLAY IN SENTENCING REFORM? PROFESSIONALLY, WHAT ROLE SHOULD JUDGES PLAY IN SENTENCING REFORM?

  4. PLACING THE QUESTION IN CONTEXTTHE HISTORY OF U.S. SENTENCING REFORM

  5. 1. 1972 JUDGE MARVIN FRANKEL: THE WORLD OF INDEFINITE SENTENCING AND HIS IDEAS2. FORTY YEARS OF SENTENCING REFORMA. SENTENCING COMMISSIONSB. SENTENCING GUIDELINESC. GENERALLY STATED SENTENCING GOALSD. DRUG COURTS AND OTHER SPECIALLY COURTSE. “TRUTH IN SENTENCING” AND “TOUGH ON CRIME”

  6. THE MARCH TOWARD MASSIVE OVER-INCARCERATION “TRUTH IN SENTENCING” AND “TOUCH ON CRIME”A. MANDATORY MINIMUM SENTENCINGSB. HIGHER STATUTORY SENTENCE LIMITSC. PROBATION AND PAROLE RESTRICTIONSD. GOOD TIME RESTRICTIONSE. MULTIPLE OFFENDER STATUTESF. RECALCULATION OF SENTENCING GUIDELINES

  7. OUR LENSTHE ABA CANONS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

  8. THE JUDGES’ ROLE IN EARLY SENTENCE REFORM THE EARLY SENTENCING COMMISSIONS AND SENTENCING GUIDELINES THE WORLD OF DRUG AND SPECIALTY COURTS THE WORLD OF “TRUTH IN SENTENCING” AND “TOUGH ON CRIME”

  9. THE JUDGES’ ROLE IN THE MASS INCARCERATION REVOLUTION THE STATUTORY CHANGES HIGHER SENTENCES

  10. WHY DID THE JUDGES STAND BY THE SIDELINES?WHAT DO THE CANONS SAY?

  11. THE ETHICAL AND PROFESSIONALISM IMPLICATIONS OF STANDING ON THE SIDELINESWHAT DO THE CANONS SAY?

  12. SENTENCING REFORM TODAYWHAT IS THE JUDGES’ ROLE?THE BIG PICTURETHE CANONS

  13. SENTENCING REFORM TODAYTHE BIG PICTUREWHAT ROLES CAN INDIVIDUAL JUDGES PLAY?SOME IDEAS

  14. SENTENCING REFORM TODAYTHE BIG PICTURE SOME BIG ISSUES FOR JUDGES TO ADDRESS GUIDELINES STATES DETERMINATE AND INDERTMINATE DISCRETIONARY RISK/NEEDS ASSESSMENT AT SENTENCING ARRIVING AT GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN SENTENCING

  15. SENTENCING REFORM TODAY THE INDIVIDUAL SENTENCE SENTENCING WITH PURPOSE“The principal and underlying reason why…prisons are overcrowded, cost a lot and result in high levels of recidivism at the expense of public safety is that judges are sentencing too many non-violent offenders to prison, and sentencing some of them for too long a term.” Judge Roger K. Warren, National Center for State Courts.

  16. THE ANSWERWE, THE JUDICIARY, ARE ETHICALLY AND PROFESSIONALLY BOUND TO PARTICIPATE IN, AND TO LEAD, THE EFFORT TO PUT THE SENTENCE AND ITS CONSEQUENCES ON AN EVIDENCE BASED FOOTING GEARED TOWARD REDUCED RECIDIVISM AND SUCCESSFUL REENTRY INTO THE COMMUNITY, AND TOWARD REDUCING OUR MASSIVE INCARCERATION RATES. WE, AS INDIVIDUAL JUDGES, IN SENTENCING EACH INDIVIDUAL OFFENDER, ARE ALSO ETHICALLY AND MORALLY BOUND TO IDENTIFY OUR SENTENCING PURPOSES AND THEN TO PURSUE THEM WITHIN THE MEANS AVAILABLE AS A MATTER OF LAW, PROPORTIONALITY, RISK, AND PRIORITY.

More Related