« PreviousContinue »
s 1722, again, essentially the Justice Department's
criminal code, eliminates parole without cutting prison
sentence lengths but lengthening them in some cases.
parole can come after 1/3 of the sentence maximum, maximum
sentences, if parole is eliminated, should be reduced 2/3s, but
there is no reduction in the Senate bill.)
The House bill
retains parole for 5 years and then drops it.
rre cut only 1/2 which still sums up to longer sentences.
sentences with no parole will cause more overcrowding and
greatly increase the likelihood of unrest and rioting.
S 1722 makes a severe cut-back in "good time" (days
to serve eliminated from a sentence for good conduct).
abolishes good time altogether.
This violates the double
jeopardy clause of the Constitution and provides prosecutors with
a convenient threat to get pleas accepted (either the offender
accepts the plea or the Government will appeal).
A death penalty
bill was passed in the same session of the Senate Judiciary committee
as the Senate Code and may be tacked onto S 1722 as an amendment on
the Senate floor.
It is likely that a death penalty amendment will
also be tacked onto HR 6915 in the Judiciary committee.
We strongly recommend that you and your
colleagues draft amendments to introduce in the full Judiciary that
will remedy the above inadequacies in HR 6915 and that you alert
your colleagues to the above provisions on government appeal and
the death penalty likely to be offered in full committee.
recomend that you and your colleagues make every effort to attend
every full Judiciary meeting in which HR 6915 is to be discussed.
Citizens Commission on Human Rights
Icoleman McCarthy, "The World Learns America's Dirty Secret, Its Prisons," Los Angeles Times, March 20, 1979, p.
2 James L. Potts, "Alternative Punishment for Being Poor Won't Reduce Crime. A Proposal for Non-Correctional Alternatives to Punishment," The Prison Law Monitor, 160, Nov. - Dec., 1979.
31ra M. Lowe, Esq., Testimony before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Senate Judiciary Committee, Oct. 5, 1979.
4L.A. Nkoloric, "Getting Tough' With All Convicts is a Prescription for More Crime," The Washington Post, Oct. 14, 1979.
5Thomas Whittle, exclusive to Freedom News Journal, 23 March, '79.
CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON
CITIZENS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON
October 29, 1979
Subcommittee Members and Staff
The following is a summary of studies which demonstrate that utilization of sentencing alternatives can be responsibly, substantially increased. Britain has demonstrated that courts can successfully match offenders to suitable alternative programs, which reduces recidivism, which has a multiple reduction effect on the crime rate. Many u. s. alternative programs exercise tight control over program participants and thereby provide excellent security to the community. Many alternative programs are available which can upgrade offender job-skills and thereby reduce unemployment, as well as reduce the micro-economic incentives for criminal activities. At this time, there is sufficiently solid justification for you to enact legislation providing for the full utilization of suitable alternative programs.
NCJRS numbers have been provided in most of the footnotes in the Appendix to facilitate your acquisition of the full text of the studies cited, from either the Department of Justice or the LEAA library.
You may also refer to my October 5, 1979 testimony before the U. S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary.
save a Substantial Amount of
Alternative Programs can
Can Alternatives to Imprisonment Deter Crime as Effectively as Imprisonment? P. 3
Can Alternatives to Prison Provide More Effective Punishment than Imprisonment? P. 7
Alternative Programs Can Provide Excellent Security to the Community, P. 8
Reducing Recidivism with Alternatives to Prison Will Reduce the Crime Rate,
Alternatives Coupled with Probation Can Greatly Increase
Can Public Opinion Accept Alternatives to Imprisonment,
Does the Authority to Impose Alternatives to Imprisonment Need to be Legislated? P. 22