The Wisconsin Truth in Sentencing law has outlined stricter guidelines for sentencing criminals in the state.
The adoption of the temporary Wisconsin sentencing guidelines began Feb. 1, 2003 and has targeted 11 different offenses, including armed robbery and first-degree sexual assault. These original 11 offenses were targeted because they account for 70 percent of corrections spending in Wisconsin.
The Criminal Penalties Study Committee, a panel chaired by Reserve Judge Thomas Barland of Eau Claire, drafted the temporary guidelines. The committee was born out of the 1997 Wisconsin Act 283, the original Truth in Sentencing law. Prior to Act 283, offenders rarely served the entire prison term imposed.
This was due to mandatory release dates that were enforced after two-thirds of an offender’s sentence was served in confinement. The prisoner would then serve part or all of the remaining time under a parole caseworker’s care.
Under the new law, a one-year sentence means one year served, a much stricter sentence.
“To come up with reasonable guidelines, you have to look at past practice,” said Judge Barland. “There is a great deal of analysis and a number of factors involved.”
In the meantime, the new sentencing guidelines have taken effect and judges are consulting them during sentencing. However, the guidelines are not binding. There is discretion for the judge to make a decision on time of imprisonment, which is confinement and extended supervision combined.
With Wisconsin already having strict laws for felonies, critics say the Truth in Sentencing laws weren’t really needed.
“An awful lot of people thought they were not necessary,” said Keith Findley, UW Clinical Associate Professor at Law.
Findley said the new Truth in Sentencing laws leave the possibility for an offender to refrain from participating in rehabilitation and discard the importance of good behavior, leaving little incentive for the convicted to participate in rehab if there are no chances for parole.
While Judge Barland agreed that there might be less participation in rehabilitation, he pointed out those who do participate might be more sincere about getting help versus using rehab as a way to get out early. Judge Barland also pointed out that in the new system there are still deterrents such as “negative incentives” for inmates. The can have time added on for bad behavior.
“In the old system if you were a good guy, you got out early,” he said. “Now if you are a bad guy, you stay in longer.”
The Criminal Penalties Study Committee not only devised the temporary guidelines but also suggested a panel called the Sentencing Commission to study sentencing patterns statewide, review and revise the current temporary guidelines, and create new guidelines.
In August, Gov. Jim Doyle announced seven more appointments to the 18-member Sentencing Commission, including Chair Susan Steingass, a lawyer at Habush, Habush & Rottier in Madison.
“I am pleased these highly qualified people have agreed to serve on the Sentencing Commission,” Doyle said when announcing the appointments. “The commission has a very important role to play in developing sentencing guidelines for felony sentences imposed under Truth in Sentencing. I am confident that these talented individuals will make a significant contribution to the development of sentencing practices that are consistent and fair, and which protect public safety in the most cost effective way.”
However, the panel has not yet met and has already seen drastic cuts in staff due to legislative delays and the tight state budget. The suggested staff size of six, which included an executive director and researchers, has been cut to two. The two, likely to be an executive director and a researcher, have yet to be hired. With a small research staff, it will likely be a daunting task to perform the amount of research necessary to support the commission.
