Assignment Question

In 1999, the state of Wisconsin enacted “truth in sentencing”, 1997 Wisconsin Act 283 (Act 283), thereby effectively removing parole as an option for early release. Explain the law and its effect on the criminal justice system. Is this a good policy, why or why not? 5-7 pages, APA style, with a cover page. The reference page counts but the cover page doesn’t. Be prepared to present your paper. At least 4 references. Only 2 can be from media sources!

Answer

Introduction

In 1999, the state of Wisconsin implemented a significant change in its criminal justice system with the enactment of “truth in sentencing” through 1997 Wisconsin Act 283 . This legislative measure effectively eliminated parole as an option for early release for individuals convicted of crimes in the state. This essay will delve into the details of Act 283, its impact on the criminal justice system in Wisconsin, and whether it can be considered a good policy. The “truth in sentencing” law aimed to address issues related to the duration of incarceration and parole eligibility, with the intention of promoting transparency and accountability in sentencing. However, its implications on prison populations, recidivism rates, and the overall criminal justice system warrant careful analysis.

The Law and Its Effects on the Criminal Justice System

Act 283, often referred to as “truth in sentencing,” fundamentally changed the way sentences were administered in the state of Wisconsin. Prior to the enactment of this law, parole was a viable option for individuals convicted of crimes, allowing for the possibility of early release based on good behavior and other factors. However, Act 283 drastically altered this system by requiring individuals to serve a substantial portion of their sentences, typically at least 85%, before becoming eligible for release (Wisconsin Legislative Council, 1997). This shift had significant consequences for both inmates and the criminal justice system as a whole. One notable effect of Act 283 was the increase in the length of time individuals spent behind bars. With the removal of parole as an option for early release, prisoners were required to serve longer sentences, often leading to overcrowding in correctional facilities.

This overcrowding posed challenges related to inmate safety, healthcare, and the overall functioning of the prison system (Mauer & Chesney-Lind, 2002).  The extended sentences resulting from “truth in sentencing” had financial implications, as the state needed to allocate more resources to maintain a growing prison population. Additionally, Act 283 had an impact on the concept of rehabilitation within the criminal justice system. Parole had previously served as a mechanism for incentivizing good behavior and participation in rehabilitation programs while in prison. The elimination of parole diminished these incentives, potentially reducing the motivation for inmates to engage in self-improvement and rehabilitation efforts (Tonry, 2001). This shift raised questions about whether the new sentencing structure was aligned with the goals of a rehabilitative justice system.

The Goodness of “Truth in Sentencing” Policy

Assessing the goodness of the “truth in sentencing” policy in Wisconsin requires a comprehensive evaluation of its advantages and disadvantages. On one hand, the law aimed to provide transparency in sentencing by ensuring that individuals served a substantial portion of their sentences before becoming eligible for release. This transparency was seen as a way to enhance public trust in the criminal justice system by aligning sentences more closely with the expectations of victims and the community (Tonry, 1999). Act 283 sought to address concerns about disparities in sentencing, particularly in cases where parole decisions were influenced by subjective factors. By establishing clear guidelines for release eligibility, the law intended to reduce the potential for disparities in sentencing outcomes (Zimring & Hawkins, 1997). This aspect of the policy was viewed as a step towards a fairer and more consistent criminal justice system.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the implementation of “truth in sentencing” through 1997 Wisconsin Act 283 had a profound impact on the criminal justice system in Wisconsin. The law eliminated parole as an option for early release, leading to longer sentences, challenges related to prison overcrowding, and potential repercussions for rehabilitation efforts. While “truth in sentencing” aimed to provide transparency and consistency in sentencing, it also raised questions about its alignment with the principles of rehabilitation and the potential for overcrowding. Assessing the goodness of this policy is a complex task. On one hand, it sought to address issues of transparency and disparities in sentencing, which are important aspects of a fair and just criminal justice system. On the other hand, the consequences of longer sentences and reduced incentives for rehabilitation require careful consideration. Future research and analysis are necessary to determine the long-term effects of “truth in sentencing” on recidivism rates, inmate well-being, and the overall effectiveness of the criminal justice system in Wisconsin.

References

Mauer, M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2002). Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. The New Press.

Tonry, M. (1999). Sentencing matters. Oxford University Press.

Wisconsin Legislative Council. (1997). 1997 Wisconsin Act 283.

Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. (1997). Incapacitation: Penal confinement and the restraint of crime. Oxford University Press.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1: What is “truth in sentencing” (Act 283) in Wisconsin?

A1: “Truth in sentencing” refers to 1997 Wisconsin Act 283 (Act 283), a law enacted in Wisconsin in 1999. It significantly changed the sentencing and parole system in the state by requiring individuals to serve a substantial portion of their sentences, typically at least 85%, before becoming eligible for release. This law effectively eliminated parole as an option for early release.

Q2: What was the primary goal of Act 283?

A2: The primary goal of Act 283 was to provide transparency and accountability in the sentencing process. It aimed to ensure that individuals served the majority of their sentences as a way to align with the expectations of victims and the community regarding punishment for crimes.

Q3: What were the effects of Act 283 on prison populations?

A3: Act 283 led to an increase in the length of time individuals spent in prison. As parole was no longer an option for early release, inmates were required to serve longer sentences. This increase in the prison population resulted in challenges related to overcrowding and the allocation of resources to manage the growing number of inmates.

Q4: How did Act 283 affect rehabilitation efforts within the criminal justice system?

A4: The elimination of parole as an option for early release had implications for rehabilitation efforts. Parole had previously served as an incentive for inmates to engage in rehabilitation programs and demonstrate good behavior. With the removal of this incentive, questions arose about the motivation for inmates to participate in self-improvement activities while in prison.

Q5: Did Act 283 address disparities in sentencing?

A5: Act 283 aimed to address concerns about disparities in sentencing by establishing clear guidelines for release eligibility. The law intended to reduce the potential for disparities in sentencing outcomes, which could occur when parole decisions were influenced by subjective factors.