Shortfall News
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMUNICATIONS
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fed. Sentencing Guidelines
|
|
|
|
|
Virgina 2002 Proportional Bill
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Smith, New Jersey, 2002
|
|
|
|
|
Bolivia Family Planning Aid
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sitemap
|
|
|
Shorfall News: Proposed Bills
|
|
|
|
|
-
Proposed Bill for U.S. Congress
-
Proposed U.S. Bill for Proportionally Suspended Sentence
Comment and Co-Sponsor Draft
Revised: 8-30-01
Outline of Effects:
1. Currently, the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines have no
realistic provisions for providing incentives for effective residential
therapeutic community programs, which last from three months to one year or
longer. There are also no provisions for some other types of substantive
programs which are effective in reducing recidivism and crime.
2. Statistical studies on representative therapeutic community programs
have demonstrated a reduction of recidivism from 65 % to 18% for offenders
with drug involvement. Offenders with drug involvement have recidivism rates
higher than average, often at the 65% return to prison rate, see DeLeon,
articles on Phoenix House studies, from 1965-1998.
3. The reason given by the U. S. Sentencing Commissioners for not
including incentives for suspended terms of imprisonment for therapeutic
community drug treatment programs, in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, is
that these types of sentences are less than one-half of one percent of the
cases, and are therefore statistically insignificant. Other effective
alternative programs costing $25, 000 to $35,000 are also not included in the
Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
4. The racial imbalance of a larger than representative percentage of
African American offenders being incarcerated, and returning to prison, is,
in part, because effective alternative programs are under-funded, and many
African American, and other offenders, who are willing to participate in
comprehensive programs, do not have realistic access to these effective
programs.
5. This bill provides for funding of alternative programs from the
money saved from the suspended term of imprisonment, up to one-half the cost
of the suspended term of imprisonment, a limit of there years. The bill
provides reimbursement of the cost of the program, up to $37,500, which would
pay for man effective therapeutic community programs.
6. Currently, there are a limited number of placements for offenders in
effective therapeutic community programs, because the programs are able to
offer letters of acceptance to but a select few offenders. This bill will
allow programs to expand the number of letters of acceptance, because of the
funding provided Proportional Sentencing.
7. Under this proposed bill, when an offender stops participating in a
program, the offender will receive proportional credit for the time spent
working the program. This bill is a step toward recognizing Proportional
Sentencing as complying with Truth in Sentencing Federal Requirements for
Federal Funding for the State Courts.
8. Until the U.S. Sentencing Commission sets specific incentives for
suspended terms of imprisonment for substantive alternative programs, a
sentencing judge may impose the guideline sentence of the number of years
specified by the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and then suspend the length
of imprisonment appropriate to serve as an incentive for a defendant's
participation in the agreed upon program. This proposed bill places a cap of
three years on the amount of time of imprisonment that can be suspended for
alternative service.
9. Deterrence. Currently, it is difficult for responsible, law abiding
U.S. Voters to understand that the deterrent value of imprisonment peaks out
at the expectation of 6 months of imprisnment, (Blumstein, 1978). Most
citizens have long range planning capacities, and for them, the expectation
of 2, 5, or 8 years of imprisonment are conceptually of increasing deterrent
value. Most offenders who are on the prowl, looking for illegal
opportunities, have only short range planning capacities. Also, if an
illegal opportunity appears to be without risk of discovery, then the prison
sentence, regardless of length, becomes irrelevant, because denial has set in
about the chances of being apprehended. Over the years in the 1900's crime
increased and decreased, tracking or following tghrends in unemployment
rates. The willingness of society to assist those in finding a niche, for
those whose talents may be sub-standard in some respects, helps to reduce
unemployment and under-employment. Effective alternative sanctions can serve
both as the equivalent of a 6 month maximally deterrent sentence for actual
criminals, and assist in reducing traffic through the revolving prison door.
10. Gun owners should favor implementation of effective programs,
because crimes in the news will be reduced. Recidivist offenders sometimes
use guns in the commission of crimes, which gives guns a bad name. By
reducing crimes with guns, and reducing the severity of the crimes in which
guns are used, the public outcry against guns should be reduced.
11. Social workers are often dedicated to the advancement of mental
health. Drug, alcohol and criminal rehabilitation are challenging
assignments for counselors and social workers.
12. Business owners in high crime districts should be interested in
reducing crime, for the safety and improved working conditions for
themselves, and their employees. This Proportionally Suspended Sentence bill
reduces the crime in high crime areas, by reducing crimes committed by
recidivists.
13. Insurance companies should experience a decrease in claims from
crime, with a reduction in recidivism, and be able to reduce premium fees for
insurance charged to their policy holders.
14. Taxpayers should be interested in the more effective use of their
money. Actual criminals are largely short-sighted, while law-abiding
citizens are highly capable of planning ahead. When a politician says he
will lock up criminals for longer times, taxpayers believe that this is
effective public policy, because longer time periods, are important in
personal planning by individual taxpayers. For taxpayers, significant
increased deterrence is provided by the expectation of addtional increments,
of up to ten years of imprisonment. But for criminals, who are largely
short-sighted, the expectation of 6 months of imprisonment is the maximum
peak deterrent value of imprisonment. Therefore, keeping prisoners in jail
beyond 6 months, is of no deterrent value, and a waste of the taxpayers
money. Alternative programs are difficult for offenders, because significant
changes in life-style are required by the programs. There are many
alternative programs available that provide deterrence to criminals
equivalent to at least 6 months of imprisonment. This Proportionally
Suspended Sentence bill will provide the funding for the increased
utilization of alternative programs, through the money saved on imprisonment.
15. When Law Enforcement officers are shot, whether killed or wounded,
it is often the result of a recidivist, who has previously been in jail.
Nearly all offedners in the United States are released from imprisonment
without having participated in the most suitable type of program of
rehabliation. Many effective programs are less expensive than three years of
imprisonment With the implementation of this Proportianally Suspended
Sentence bill, fewer law enforcement officers will be wounded or killed.
Proposed Bill for the U.S. Congress, Proportionally Suspended Sentence:
Revised 8-30-2001.
That the United States Code be amended by adding sections Title 18, §
3563 (f); Title 18, § 3583 (j); Title 18, § 3565 (d); and Title 18, § 4013
(c.) as follows:
Add Paragraph (f) to Title 18, § 3563. Conditions of probation.
(f) If, after reviewing the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and other
applicable factors, the court contemplates the imposition of a sentence of
imprisonment of three years or less, then the court shall provide the
defendant ample opportunity to present alternative programs, to all or part
of the term of imprisonment contemplated, before the imposition of sentence.
The court shall consider the alternative programs as conditions of probation.
The defendant may present alternative programs which have based acceptance
of the defendant upon funding under a Proportionally Suspended Sentence,
pursuant to Title 18, § 4013 (c). The court may order a Proportionally
Suspended Sentence of imprisonment, of up to three years of the originally
contemplated term of imprisonment, as a condition of Probation, for a
defendant's participation in a reimbursed alternative program.
(1) Evidence of the proposed program's effectiveness shall be considered
relevant to the sentencing hearing. Evidence in the form of statistics kept
by the proposed program, or statistics available on similar programs, shall
be relevant. Effectiveness may include the reduction in crime experience
while offenders are participating in that type of program. Effectiveness
includes the rate of recidivism after completing a program, and for
completing various progressive stages of a program. Evidence of the
recidivism from imprisonment shall be relevant, including statistics from
various types of State, local and Federal prisons, for various classes of
defendants.
(2) If the Federal Sentencing Guidelines do not specify the amount of
imprisonment to be suspended for participation in the particular type of
program proposed by the defendant, then the sentencing judge may determine
the appropriate term of suspended imprisonment to serve as an incentive for
completion of the program. The length of the term of suspended imprisonment,
plus any imposed term of imrisonment, shall not exceed the length of the term
of imprisonment, which was originally contemplated, before hearing arguments
on a Proportionally Suspended Sentence. (3) Evidence of the
difficulties for the defendant's participation in the proposed alterative
programs, shall be considered relevant. Evidence of recidivism from
imprisonment for various classes of defendants shall also be considered
relevant in determining the length of the term of imprisonment to be
suspended, as an inducement for the defendant's participation in the program.
(4) The court shall grant such continuances as may be necessary for the
defense to gather such statistical studies as may be deemed as necessary by
the defendant for a full argument for the alternative program or programs
being proposed.
(5) When imposing a Proportionally Suspended Sentence, the court
shall specify the number of days of imprisonment to be credited for each day
of participation in the proposed program. The court may use the average or
expected length of time needed to complete the program as a benchmark, to
determine the appropriate ratio.
(6) Whenever the court imposes a Proportionally Suspended Sentence as a
condition of probation, the court shall instruct the clerk of the court to
furnish the alternative program with a copy of the order, so that the program
may be proportionally reimbursed under Title 18, § 4013 (c).
(7) In the event that the defendant fails to complete a Proportionally
Suspended Sentence, or otherwise fails to continue to participate in the
agreed upon program, revocation of probation is provided for under Title 18,
§ 3565 (d)
Add Paragraph (d) to Title 18 § 3565. Revocation of probation.
(d) Revocation of Probation for a Proportionally Suspended Sentence. If
the defendant fails to complete an alternative program, which was a condition
of probation in a Proportionally Suspended Sentence, and the court imposes
any of the proportionally suspended term of imprisonment, the court shall
credit the defendant with the proportional amount of time of imprisonment, in
accordance with the number of days of participation in the alternative
program.
(1)The suspended term of imprisonment to be imposed upon the defendant's
failure to continue to participate in the agreed upon program, shall be
reduced proportionally by the number of days the offender was to be credited
for each day of participation in the alternative program, multiplied by the
number of days the offender actually participated in the alternative program.
(2) The Court should ordinarily provide the defendant the opportunity to
propose an alternative program as a condition of probation, to serve as a
constructive alternative to the remaining term of imprisonment, under the
Proportionally Suspended Sentence. The court may order a Proportionally
Suspended Sentence of imprisonment, of up to the length of the remaining term
of imprisonment, not yet offset by alternative service. The agreed upon
substitute alternative may be included as a condition of probation pursuant
to Title 18, §3563 (f)
Add Paragraph (j) to Title 18 § 3583. Inclusion of a term of supervised
release after imprisonment:
(j) If, after reviewing the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, and other
applicable factors, the court contemplates the imposition of a sentence of
imprisonment in excess of three years, then the court shall provide the
defendant ample opportunity to present alternative programs, as conditions of
Supervised Release, before the imposition of sentence. The defendant may
present alternative programs which have based acceptance of the defendant
upon funding under a Proportionally Suspended Sentence, pursuant to Title 18,
§ 4013 (c). The court may order a Proportionally Suspended Sentence of
imprisonment, of up to three years of the originally contemplated term of
imprisonment, as a condition of Supervised Release, as an incentive for a
defendant's participation in a reimbursed alternative program.
(1) Evidence of the proposed program's effectiveness shall be considered
relevant to the sentencing hearing. Evidence in the form of statistics kept
by the proposed program, or statistics available on similar programs, shall
be relevant. Effectiveness may include the reduction in crime experience
while offenders are participating in that type of program. Effectiveness
includes the rate of recidivism after completing a program, and for
completing various progressive stages of a program. Evidence of the
recidivism from imprisonment shall be relevant, including statistics from
various types of State, local and Federal prisons, for various classes of
defendants.
(2) If the Federal Sentencing Guidelines do not specify the amount of
imprisonment to be suspended for participation in the particular type of
program proposed by the defendant, then the sentencing judge may determine
the appropriate term of suspended imprisonment to serve as an incentive for
completion of the program. The length of the term of suspended imprisonment,
plus any imposed term of imrisonment, shall not exceed the length of the term
of imprisonment, which was originally contemplated, before hearing arguments
on a Proportionally Suspended Sentence.
The court may suspend a portion of the originally contemplated sentence, of
up to three years, as an inducement for the offender to participate in the
proposed program, as a condition of Supervised Release.
(3) Evidence of the difficulties for the defendant's participation in
the proposed programs, shall be considered relevant. Evidence of the
recidivism from imprisonment on various classes of defendants shall also be
considered relevant in determining the proportion of imprisonment to be
suspended for the defendant's participation in the program.
(4) The court shall grant such continuances as may be necessary for the
defense to gather such statistical studies as may be deemed as necessary by
the defendant, for a full argument for the alternative program or programs
being proposed.
(5) When imposing a Proportionally Suspended Sentence, the court
shall specify the number of days of imprisonment to be credited for each day
of participation in the proposed program. The court may use the average or
expected length of time needed to complete the program as a benchmark, to
determine the appropriate ratio.
(6) Whenever the court imposes a Proportionally Suspended Sentence, as
a condition of supervised release, the court shall instruct the clerk of the
court to furnish the alternative program with a copy of the order, so that
the program may be proportionally reimbursed under Title 18, § 4013 (c).
(7) In the event that the defendant fails to complete a Proportionally
Suspended Sentence, and the court imposes any of the proportionally suspended
term of imprisonment, the court shall credit the defendant with the
proportional amount of time of imprisonment, in accordance with the number of
days of participation in the alternative program. The suspended term of
imprisonment to be imposed upon the defendant's failure to continue to
participate in the agreed upon program, shall be reduced proportionally by
the number of days the offender was to be credited for each day of
participation in the alternative program, multiplied by the number of days
the offender actually participated in the alternative program.
Add Paragraph (c.) To Title 18 § 4013. Support of United States prisoners in
non-Federal institutions:
(c). Reimbursement for Treatment under a Proportionally Suspended Sentence.
The Attorney General shall reimburse the cost of the alternative program, up
to one-half of the cost of the proportionally credited time of imprisonment,
under Title 18, § 3563 (f), or Title 18 § 3583 (j) or a substantially
similar sentencing provision of the Code of the District of Columbia..
(1) Progress payments shall be made without consideration for whether
the proportionally suspended sentence has been completed. The payment shall
be made from funds appropriated for the support of United States prisoners.
The funding entity may include the average costs of performing assessments
and the costs of maintaining the ordinary ratio of court-ordered participants
to non-court ordered participants associated with operating the program. The
Attorney General shall directly reimburse the alternative program that has
provided the treatment under a Proportionally Suspended Sentence.
(2) The Attorney General shall complete processing applications for
reimbursement for programs within sixty days of the receipt of an application
for payment from the alternative program. If the Attorney General has
received an application for reimbursement from the alternative program within
the past sixty days, the Attorney General shall have sixty days from the date
of receiving the last application processed from the same program, to begin
processing the next funding application.
(3) The Attorney General shall determine the cost per year of
imprisonment from the most recent United States budget, without regard to
profits from housing non-Federal prisoners or profits from concessions,
profits from prison labor, or receipts from telephone surcharges, or other
income from concessions provided for inmates, relatives or visitors. The
U.S. Treasurer may serve as a mediator of any disputes. In no case shall the
cost of imprisonment be calculated at less than $26,000.00 per year.
To support Proportional Sentencing, to find supporting references, and check
hearing schedules: contact http://www.rehabmissed.com
For further information, contact:
Thomas Donelson
Attorney at Law
5615 Castlebury Court
Burke, VA 22015
703-425-6600
E-Mail: rehabmissd@aol.com
alusprsc.bll
Others accepting phone calls to discuss this Proportionally Suspended
Sentence bill:
Barry Holman, Esq.
National Center on Institutions and Alternatives
Phone: 703-684-0373
Cherri Branson, Esq.
Congressional Staff, 202-225-8885
Malcolm Young, Esq.
Mr. Mark Mauer
Sentencing Project
202-628-0871
Rodney Honesty
Efforts
202-526-5121
Others who are neutral, non-endorsers, but knowledgeable on some pertinent
issues:
Tim McGraph, Esq.
U.S. Sentencing Commission
202-502-4500
| | | |
Make sense of the unpredictable market
-
Virginia HB 1021
-
Proposed Bill for Virginia Proportional Sentencing
As Introduced, Virginia House Bill No. 1021, Year 2000
Authored/Edited by Thomas Donelson, Attorney, (703) 425-6600
5615 Castlebury Court
Burke, VA 22015
E-mail Rehabmissd@aol.com
Fax: (703) 425-6600
Revision date 12/1/1999
Add the following sections:
19.2-303.3.1 A. Proportional Suspension of Sentence. The court, at any time
within the time of its sentencing jurisdiction, may proportionally suspend up
to 3 years of imprisonment, conditioned upon the defendant's participation in
a residential drug or other treatment program. Upon the participation of the
defendant in the treatment program, for each one day period, the offender's
suspended sentence shall be reduced by the number of days that were
proportionally suspended. The proportional credit will be determined by, the
length of the proportionally suspended term of imprisonment, divided by the
expected length of the program. If the program was ordinarily a 6 month
program, and the proportionally suspended sentence was three years, then the
suspended sentence would be reduced by 6 days of imprisonment, for each one
day participation in the treatment program. Whenever the court imposes a
proportionally suspended sentence, the court shall instruct the clerk to
furnish the City, County, funding agency or funding entity, a copy of the
order, so that the funding agency or entity may be proportionally reimbursed
under 53.1-80.1
B. In deciding whether to impose a proportionally suspended sentence, in
addition to other appropriate factors, the court may also take into account
the following factors:
(1) The anticipated effectiveness of the program for reducing
recidivism, by either statistics kept on the particular program being
proposed, or by statistics available on programs which are similar in nature.
(2) In deciding upon the ratio of the time of imprisonment to be
suspended in relationship to the expected length of the program, the court
may consider the cost of funding the program, and the amount to be
proportionally reimbursed under Section 53.1-80.1
C. In deciding whether to impose a conditionally suspended sentence, the
court may presume any of the following, absent clear and convincing evidence
to the contrary:
(1) The court may assume that while there is a public interest in
maximizing the time of segregation of criminals from the communities of the
Commonwealth, that the suspension of the last few years of imprisonment as an
incentive for the defendant to participate in effective alternative programs
of rehabilitation before returning to the community, will reduce crime in
the communities, because of the substantial reduction in recidivism achieved
by successful programs.
(2) If an offender has been accepted to a drug treatment program that is
similar to a program which has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing
recidivism, or reducing the severity of recidivism, the court may presume
that the drug treatment program will reduce crime in general, whether or not
the defendant admits to the use of intoxicants, and whether or not there is
any evidence of the use of intoxicants by the defendant.
(3) The court may presume that there is a difference in the perceptions
of deterrence between the general public, and those individuals who are
actually in need of deterrence. The deterrent value of an alternative
program of rehabilitation may often be considerably less for the general
public, than for the actual offenders, or those individuals with a weakness
toward the commission of criminal acts. The court may discount the
perception of the public that rehabilitation is not punitive, because therapy
for a people without an emotional disability is generally not burdensome.
The court may give great weight to the actual perception of the difficulty of
counseling and behavior modification for the offender, and the perception of
effective rehabilitation programs held by other individuals in the community
with weaknesses of character, which lead to criminal convictions. The court
may give considerable weight to the offender's aversion to rehabilitation,
resistance to therapy, and denial of weakness, as indicating a high deterrent
value for a rehabilitative program. The offender's aversion to therapy may
be considered in assessing the punitive value of the sentence.
(4) The court may presume that if the defendant has participated in one
or more programs of rehabilitation in the past, that these experiences will
provide a basis for further effective rehabilitation. The court may presume
that the defendant's past participation in rehabilitative programs will yield
an increased likelihood that one more program will be sufficient for the
offender to become arrest free, or at least serve to diminish the severity of
any repeat offense.
(5) The court may presume that the defendant's voluntary participation
in a program is an essential feature for the success of the program. If
either the program wishes to expel the defendant, or the defendant wishes to
terminate participation in the program, the court may presume that no
prejudice should attach either to the program or to the defendant.
(6) If the defendant has started, yet not completed programs in the
past, the court may assume that the defendant has experienced a pivotal,
critical incident, in the previous instances of dropping out, and may assume
that the defendant will have gained insight into the value of withstanding
the temptation of dropping out. The court may assume that the defendant will
remain in the currently proposed program for the assigned period of time.
The court may further assume that any problems associated with dropping out,
will be reduced or eliminated.
(7) The court may assume that in addition to developing skills for an
arrest free lifestyle through the periods of participation in past programs.
The court my further assume that the defendant has learned important lessons
in the process of the termination of participation in any dropping out
experience, including the unintentional internalization of important
positive principles from the program.
(8) If the defendant has dropped out of alternative programs in the
past, and remained at large for substantial lengths of time, the court may
assume that if the defendant drops out of the program assigned this time,
that the defendant will drop out in a constructive manner, will not remain at
large for any length of time, and will not commit any new offenses in the
process of dropping out of the program.
(9) The court may assume that the offender will not participate in any
significant criminal activity while the defendant is participating in the
program, particularly if the program is modeled after a program with
statistically demonstrated effective community protection strategies.
(10) In the event that an offender fails to complete the assigned
program, the court may continue to presume that one more program will be
sufficient for the defendant to attain an arrest free lifestyle, and seek to
find another suitable program for the proportionally remaining term of the
proportionally suspended sentence.
(11) The court may presume that the influence of the program proposed
for the defendant will actually be positive for the defendant. There are a
variety of effective programs, and some successful programs are religious
based. Some programs or religions have been experienced as
overly-controlling, or as cults, by some individuals. Provided the offender
wishes to voluntarily enter the program as a conditionally suspended
alternative, the court may presume that the defendant has sufficient
self-determination to derive positive benefit from the program, without
experiencing any significant detriment from any overly controlling
influences.
(12) The court may presume that the participation by the defendant in a
program of rehabilitation will have a ripple or synergistic effect. The
court may presume that the participation in a treatment program by this
defendant is a tangible admission of wrongdoing by the defendant. The court
may presume that the example of the defendant's entering a program of
rehabilitation will encourage others, in need of change, to seek assistance
in avoiding wrongdoing. The court may presume that when the offender returns
to the communities of the Commonwealth, the offender will be less of a
negative influence, or even a positive influence, for others to avoid the
temptations of wrongdoing.
(13) The court may presume that the defendant's participating in the
program of rehabilitation will lead to a decrease in the defendant's use of
intoxicants, and result in an increase in the defendant's good judgement,
which will result in an increase in the tranquility of the communities of the
Commonwealth, which will yield an improvement in the quality of life in the
community upon the defendant's return to the communities of the Commonwealth.
D. (1) The court shall give proportional credit for any time spent in an
alternative program, in ordering a new proportionally suspended sentence with
any remaining term suspended proportionally.
(2) The court may add up to 4 days of imprisonment for every one day
that an offender has not reported to his probation officer after leaving a
program. The defendant shall not face any new charges for having left a
program under a proportionally suspended sentence until 19 days have passed
without reporting to the probation officer, the court or turning himself in
to law enforcement officers within the Commonwealth or other governmental
jurisdiction
(3) The court may order the offender held with or without bail, pending
assignment to a new alternative program. Any time served by the defendant
awaiting a new program will be counted against the originally imposed
suspended sentence. The court shall not increase the term of proportionally
suspended imprisonment, other than as specified in Section 2 above.
E. If there is a mandatory minimum prescribed by statute, applicable to
the defendant, and the sentence being imposed upon the defendant does not
exceed the mandatory minimum by three years, then that portion of the
mandatory minimum sentence, up to three years, is hereby authorized to be set
aside for the implementation of up to a three year proportionally suspended
sentence.
F. (1) The court may assign the probation department to monitor the
proportionally suspended sentence, and the probation department, or such
other agent as designated by the court, shall provide verification to the
funding organization, sufficient for obtaining reimbursement under 53.1-80.1.
The funding organization may apply for reimbursement after any two month
period of a defendant's participation. The court would retain authority to
resolve disputes on issues involving supplying information necessary for the
application for reimbursement.
(2) In the proportionally suspended order, the court may specify what
proportion is intended as residential, and what proportion is intended as
intensive out-patient, and if or when there will be a segment of occasional
follow up. The program will not be bound by the estimates in its treatment,
but will be bound by the estimates for reimbursement of funding, and the
court may consider the lengths of each type of supervision provided, in
determining the proportion of the term of imprisonment to be suspended.
53.1-80.1 A. Reimbursement for Treatment under Proportionally Suspended
Sentences. The State Treasurer shall reimburse the cost of the alternative
program, up to ½ the cost of time of imprisonment for a proportionally
suspended sentence, from funds appropriated to the Department of Corrections.
The State Treasurer shall reimburse the City, County or other funding entity
which has supplied an alternative program of rehabilitation for a
proportionally suspended sentence.
B. The State Treasurer may decline to process applications for
reimbursement at less than two month intervals. The State Treasurer shall
have up to 60 days to process reasonably complete applications, without
incurring interest. The State treasurer may ask the sentencing court for
clarification of a court order for a proportionally suspended sentence in the
case of any ambiguity. The time spent by the defendant participating in the
alternative should be clear on the application. The funding entity shall be
reimbursed for the time spent participating, whether or not the defendant
completes the program.
C. The State Treasurer shall determine the cost of imprisonment without
regard to profits from taking in out-of state prisoners, or profits from
concessions or telephone surcharges. The treasury board may serve as a
mediator of any disputes. In no case shall the cost of imprisonment be
calculated at less than $24,000 per year.
alvasesn.prf
|
- Reserved Space
Good site that covers stocks, mutual funds, and IPO tracking.
|
|
- Annual Reports
Get free copies of annual reports through this Wall Street Journal service to research investment opportunities on various companies.
|
|
|
|
