|
Shortfall News |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
COMMUNICATIONS |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fed. Sentencing Guidelines |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Virgina 2002 Proportional Bill |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Chris Smith, New Jersey, 2002 |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bolivia Family Planning Aid |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Sitemap |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
|
Dear Legislator: The accompanying 4 page bill entitled Proportionally Suspended Sentence, addresses the under-utilization of effective drug treatment programs in Virginia. An effective treatment program costs $20,000.00 to $30,000.00. This bill allows the sentencing court to suspend up to three years of imprisonment, with half of the money saved from that prison term, to be transferred to the program, that is selected by the sentencing court to provide the treatment. Currently, the need for drug and other rehabilitation is often not addressed at sentencing, largely because there are not enough slots for all the offenders who could benefit from treatment, together with the natural denial by many defendants, of any need for treatment. Many crimes for which Virginia offenders are convicted, are indirectly related to a drug problem, and the underlying problem of the offender is often not addressed at sentencing. This bill is similar to HB 1021, 2000, which, in addition to transferring money to programs from imprisonment, also provided a three year override of mandatory minimums, to implement rehabilitative sentences. The current draft does not address the failure of mandatory minimum sentences to provide an incentive for effective treatment. Your comments on improving the current draft of the bill would be appreciated. Cosponsors are currently being assembled. Truly yours, Thomas Donelson rehamissd@aol.com, E-mail rehamissed.com, Web Page Proposed Bill for the Virginia House 2002 Session: Simplified form of HB 1021, 2000 Session Revised 11-16-01 alvapr2b.llc PROPORTIONALLY SUSPENDED SENTENCE Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia: 1. That the Code of Virginia is amended by adding sections numbered 19.2-295.2; 19.2-303.1:1; 19.2-306 and 53.1-80.1 as follows: Section 19.2-303.1.1, Proportional suspension of sentence. A. If, after reviewing the discretionary 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 53.1 § 80.1. 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 discretionary 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 court 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 imprisonment, 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. Proposed Bill for Virginia 2002, Proportionally Suspended Sentence, P.2 (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 53.1, § 80.1. (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 19.2 § 306 B. Add Paragraph B. to Title 19.2 § 306. Revocation of Suspension of Sentence and probation. B. 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 19.2, § 303.1.1, or a condition of supervised release, pursuant to Title 19.2, § 295.2 E. Add Paragraph E. to Title 19.2 § 295.2. Inclusion of a term of supervised release after imprisonment: E. If, after reviewing the discretionary 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 53.1 § 80.1. 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. Proposed Bill for Virginia 2002 Session, Proportionally Suspended Sentence, P.3 (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 discretionary 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 court 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 imprisonment, 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 53.1 § 80.1. (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. Proposed Bill for Virginia 2002 Session, Proportionally Suspended Sentence, P. 4 Add the following Section: Title 53.1, § 80.1 Reimbursement for treatment under proportionally suspended sentences. A. For programs providing services pursuant to Title 19.2, § 303.1.1 or § 295.2 E., the State Treasurer shall reimburse the alternative program, up to one-half of the cost of the proportionally credited time of imprisonment. Progress payments shall be made without consideration for whether the proportionally suspended sentence has been completed. The payment shall be made from funds appropriated to the Department of Corrections. The program providing services 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. B. The State Treasurer shall process applications for reimbursement of alternative programs providing services under a proportionally suspended sentence, within sixty days of the receipt of an application for payment. If the State Treasurer has received an application for reimbursement from the funding entity within the past sixty days, the State Treasurer shall have sixty days from the date of receiving the last application processed from the same program to begin processing the next funding application. C. The State Treasurer shall determine the cost per year of imprisonment from the most recent Virginia budget, without regard to net revenues inuring from inmate work programs, from housing out of state prisoners, from net revenues from telephone surcharges, or other net revenues from concessions provided to inmates, relatives, correspondents, friends or visitors. The treasury board may serve as a mediator of any disputes. In no case shall the cost of imprisonment be calculated at less than $25,000 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 |
|
||