What is keeping legislators from embracing real change?
Last
week, when I wrote and published Part I in the blog, it was exactly 17 years after
the Reading Eagle published my op-ed piece in March 1997. The subject of the
viewpoint was prison overcrowding caused by removing sentencing discretion from
the judiciary. In 1982, when the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing was
created in Pennsylvania, the legislator’s own study from the previous year concluded
that the length of sentences in the state would double as a result of the
commission’s implementation! Guess what? That’s what happened. In fact, Pennsylvania’s state penitentiary
population tripled in just 15 years between 1982 and 1997 when it had not even
increased in the 40 years before 1980.
The
state’s department of corrections prison population showed no increase
whatsoever in state prison population between 1940 and 1980. Each year it
averaged 7,000 inmates. Today it is seven times greater than it was in 1980.
What caused these distressing results?
Only
two years after the 1982 effective date for the commission to begin its work,
Pennsylvania began the greatest new prison construction epidemic in its
history, opening 16 new prisons in the 14 years beginning, ironically, in 1984.
The keystone state had only a total of 11 prisons in its history prior to 1984!
The April 5, 1997 symposium was held
at Albright College. It was attended by Senator Stewart Greenleaf, chairman of
the very same Senate Judiciary Committee which just finished its study of
prison overcrowding and alternative sentencing. Sen. Greenleaf, a republican
from Montgomery County, is the longest serving Pennsylvania senator to date.
Tom Caltigerone, a Berks County democrat, was present as well, as was Berks
County state senator, the late Michael
A. O’Pake. Today, Tom is the longest serving Pennsylvania representative in the
house. He, along with Sen. Greenleaf speak often to voters and colleagues about
this problem and the need for alternative punishments, which are the same
solutions I endorse. But the opposite of alternative punishment is 1) mandatory
minimum sentencing, where judges have no discretion and 2) the Pennsylvania
Commission on Sentencing, which, because of direct and indirect pressure, motivates judges to follow the guidelines.
Pennsylvania judges sentence consistent with the guidelines and recommendations
of the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing in 90 percent of all sentences. The
commission’s guidelines have become gospel.
Until we eliminate mandatory minimum
sentencing and the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing, this problem will
continue to get worse.
No comments:
Post a Comment