While Governor Spitzer has been taking his lumps from several quarters, his administration can be praised for creating the New York Commission on Sentencing Reform. By March, the commission promises to release the results of its proposal and its mandate.
When the 11-member commission was formed last March, it came at a time when the state was reeling from a number of pressing problems in the criminal justice system, particularly reform of what many activists believe is an unfair sentencing policy.
One year is a limited amount to tackle sentencing reform, but the commission has put forth several recommendations that, if accepted and enforced, will bring about substantial change and improvement.
Among the commission’s recommendations are that criminal sentences should appropriately reflect the seriousness of the offender’s crime and should meet the multiple objectives of punishment – deterrence, rehabilitation, retribution – and that an equitable system of criminal justice must ensure that crimes of similar seriousness result in similar sanctions for similarly situated offenders.
Far too often, the commission observed, offenders of differing crimes are concentrated in the same category for treatment and rehabilitation.
“Significant disparities in how similar crimes are treated diminish the public’s trust and faith in our criminal justice system and the system of criminal sanctions in New York has grown increasingly complex,” the commission reported.
They believed that a comprehensive review of New York’s sentencing structure will provide the state with crucial guidance “to ensure the imposition of appropriate and just criminal sanctions and to make the most efficient use of the correctional system and community resources.”
Advocates of reform will be pleased that the commission has given considerable attention to the parole situation, recognizing the importance of the first few weeks of civilian life of the formerly incarcerated. It’s during this period of transition, the commission stated, that counseling, social welfare, job opportunities and Medicaid should be readily available for the parolee or the formerly incarcerated.
The commission also offered some progressive views on the enfranchisement of those on parole who, according to New York State law, are not eligible to vote.
With these reform measures underway, it will be interesting to see the extent to which the recent Supreme Court decision giving federal judges permission to reduce the sentences of those incarcerated for non-violent crimes, particularly those sentenced for substance abuse violations, will impact the commission’s recommendations.
Some advocates have expressed a concern that the commission includes among its members at least one formerly-incarcerated member. “Other states have done so,” said one advocate, who asked to be nameless.
