Truth in Sentencing

History

Before truth in sentencing, it was possible for offenders to be released from confinement prior to their maximum release date. Usually this was accomplished through one of two mechanisms: “good time” credit, in which the sentence was reduced as a reward for the prisoner's good behavior; and parole, in which the offender was granted early, supervised release at the discretion of a parole board. It is estimated that, prior to the enactment of truth-in-sentencing legislation, violent offenders served approximately half of the time to which they were sentenced.

Since the 1980s, criminal justice policy in the United States and elsewhere has been driven by a “Get tough” mentality, which has resulted in a push for more punitive and, supposedly, less arbitrary sentencing. In addition to truth in sentencing, other reforms that have been introduced include guideline sentencing and mandatory minimum sentencing, as demanded by Three-Strikes Laws. The general idea behind all of these practices is that the early release mechanisms of good time credit and parole are soft on crime, and that offenders should be required to serve most, if not all, of their full sentences.

The first state to impose truth in sentencing was Washington, in 1984. However, the general move toward truth in sentencing in the United States largely stems from the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. In that act, the federal government made grant funds available to states where individuals convicted of murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault (the four violent crimes indexed in Part I of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports) were required to serve 85% or more of their prison sentences. Qualifying states received grant funds that they could use for new prison construction to accommodate the potential increase in the prison population. Following the passage of this law, many states quickly incorporated truth in sentencing into their provisions, although some researchers have suggested that they would probably have changed their sentencing guidelines anyway, regardless of [Page 974]the grant money. To date, close to $2 billion has been appropriated to these grants.

It is important to note that states vary in their truthin-sentencing guidelines. Some apply only to violent offenders, whereas others apply to all offenders, regardless of their crimes, who have been sentenced to correctional institutions. In addition, a small minority of states have gone so far as to impose a requirement that the full sentence (100%) be served.

...