Report of SENTAC
to the Joint Finance Committee
March 11, 2003
Richard S. Gebelein, Chair
SENTAC Committee
Presentation
to the Joint Finance Committee on March 11, 2003
During the past two years,
SENTAC has undertaken an extensive study of the Criminal Justice system
in Delaware. Through the generous support of the General Assembly we
have, perhaps for the first time, been able to do intense research into
the dynamics of our complicated system. We are not finished with that
research and what we have done so far is not perfect. Case and
defendant information in Delaware's courts, police agencies, and
Department of Correction is fragmented and not easily accessible in
some circumstances.
We have, however, produced
three reports and will be producing several others addressing
significant policy issues in the criminal justice system. Indeed, our
first report on sentencing trends and correctional treatment won a
prestigious national award. More importantly all three reports
have produced significant findings with implications for policy
decisions., A few of the most important findings are:
- Our correctional
system has changed to include a substantial emphasis on substance abuse
treatment for offenders.
- That treatment is reducing repetitive drug abuse and recidivism.
- Violent predatory criminals are spending significantly more time in
prison thus posing less threat to the
community.
- Community sanctions
are being used extensively for non-violent and less serious offenders.
- We are holding those
on community sentences accountable.
- While the number of
people detained has increased dramatically, the Department of
Correction and the Courts are moving these individuals quickly with
the average stay the same as it was 20 years ago.
- The so called "at
risk" population for arrest and detention has changed to include many
older people with close to 400/0 of all detention admissions being
over 34 years of age.
While we have
found good news in our studies we have also identified critical issues
that must be addressed. Clearly, as you all know from
Commissioner Taylor's presentation to this Committee, we must all
strive to find a way to use our taxpayers' resources most wisely while
continuing to protect the public.
Many of the goals
we and you set in the 1980's are indeed being met. We are
incapacitating the violent predatory criminal, we are using a whole
series of community sanctions for other non-violent offenders and we
are committing resources to address substance abuse problems of
offenders. We are seeing the success of programs such as "safe streets"
taking guns off the street, and "drug courts" coercing treatment for
offenders.
But we are also
paying a price for these successes. Our incarcerated and quasi incarcerated
population (Levels IV and V) have grown to more than 6,500 people. This
has overburdened the Department of Correction and costs millions of
dollars. Likewise, 16,000 plus people are under the supervision of
community corrections and probation.
We have also
found that we are not consistently using our most expensive resources
wisely. We continue to use Level IV and Level V supervision to collect
money. A high percentage of our bench warrants are for failure to pay
fines and other monies owed (51 % in 1999). We use Level V to punish
recalcitrant offenders out of frustration. We keep persons on probation
much longer than is necessary to achieve rational sentencing goals. We
keep some individuals incarcerated who because of age and/or disability
no longer pose any threat to the public safety.
WE MUST DO
BETTER IN USING OUR RESOURCES IN A SMART WAY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC.
From what we
have learned in our studies SENTAC and the Criminal Justice/Corrections
system has already taken a number of positive steps:
1. Review of a
number of non-violent inmates by an interdisciplinary
team
including the Attorney General's Office, Public Defender's
Office, Courts, Corrections
and Parole Board to identify those
who may be worthy of early
release for age, infirmity or other
substantial reasons. Use of
11 Del C § 4217 to modify a small
number of sentences has
been initiated.
2. SENT
AC has encouraged the judiciary to use brief periods of
custody at Level IV - The
Violation of Probation Center - for
nuisance violators of
probation in lieu of Level V sentences. This
also reduces the stay to a
term of days rather than months and
yet serves as more of a
punishment.
3.
SENTAC has approved a matrix developed by the Department of
Correction for probation officials with respect to violations of
probation, using a graduated
approach for technical violations.
4.
Efforts have begun by the Attorney General and Public Defender
to
expedite the early resolution of drug and weapons charges in
Superior Court, New Castle
County, including scheduling some
pleas at the initial
appearance (arraignment).
5. It is
SENTAC policy now that probation terms presumptively run
concurrent unless specifically ordered otherwise; and SENTAC
has reminded the Judiciary
of this policy.
6.
SENTAC has approved in principle a presumption to not
reimpose the entire
probationary term for violations but to impose
other sanctions and/or to
raise the level of supervision for the time
remaining on the sentence.
MUCH MORE CAN BE DONE TO IMPROVE OUR SYSTEM IF WE
HAVE THE WILL TO DO SO.
First, some simple
cost effective modifications to the way we do business:
1. Cut the length
of supervision of non-violent offenders (community sanctions).
2. Terminate
community supervision once the stated goals of the
sentence have
been reached. (e.g., treatment completed, restitution
paid, GED obtained)
3. Use intense
supervision, Level III, only for those for whom public
safety requires. This
was the intent of the drafters of the
SENT AC system.
4. Use alternative
means and methods of pretrial supervision.
5. Actively review
Level V inmate files for problems that extend
confinement
unnecessarily. (Out of state detainers, in state
warrants, etc.)
6. Use Level IV - (VOP
Center) for punishing nuisance offenders
and technical
violations of probation.
7. Complete an up
to date inventory of all pretrial programs that
could be accessed by
offenders.
Second, some logical steps
that need legislation but would not impact
on public safety and would
not require additional funds:
1. Eliminate
conditional release as a separate period of supervision.
2. Emphasize in
the sentencing Statute the primary purposes
associated with levels
of supervision and require. that sentences
spell out their purpose for
use of such supervision.
3. Provide
legislatively for use by the Department of Correction of
short shock custody at
the VOP Center in lieu of violation of
probation hearings for some
technical violations of probationary
sentences.
4. Eliminate use
of Level V for failure to pay monies owed. Use
less costly Level IV
instead.
5. Eliminate use
of Level V for most Title 21 offenders.
6. Eliminate
barriers that prevent offenders who will be returning to
the community from
participating in the full continuum of
substance abuse treatment,
including Level IV treatment.
7. Centralize
violations of multiple probations or sentences in one
court for hearing
purposes.
8. Review all
misdemeanor offenses to determine which should be
punishable only by
fine, restitution, community supervision and/or
community service.
9. Reclassify many
drug offenses to non-violent offenses.
10. Abolish the need
for indictment by the Grand Jury for most routine
offenses while
retaining it for serious offenses and for public
officials charged with
misconduct.
Third, some logical steps
that would enhance the cost effective use of
resources but which would
require the expenditure of funds:
1. Increase the
number of electronic monitoring units.
2. Use Level IV
sanctions, including substance abuse treatment,
VOP centers and home
confinement with Alco sensors for DUI
offenders in lieu of
Level V.
3. Continue to
study the system, monitor the effectiveness of
programs, look at
current trends and alert the system and the
General Assembly to the
impact of policy shifts.
4. Improve our
information systems to allow for up to date research
as well as use of
current information for management purposes,
e.g., funding COTS for
Courts, improving communication
between systems, etc.
5. Fill
outstanding vacancies in Office of Medical Examiner in the
area of Forensic
Chemists. Add capabilities to analyze drugs
faster, thus improving
the ability of the system to resolve cases
faster.
6. Provide for
urine testing of all offenders and offer substance
abuse evaluation and
treatment to those who test positive.
7. Establish a
long term non-corrections residential therapeutic
community treatment
facility in the community.
8. Establish a day
treatment center using intensive outpatient
programming for substance
abuse in a non-corrections
environment.
Fourth, perhaps most
controversial, I will make some suggestions on
which the Commission has
not reached consensus which I believe would
better implement the SENT
AC system as it was originally intended:
1. Allow for
"Addiction Sentences" for those convicted of those drug
offenses requiring
mandatory time. Such sentences would
require in-custody
treatment in lieu of the mandatory
warehousing of the
offender. They would be appropriate where
the offender can
demonstrate that he or she suffers an addiction
and was involved in the
drug trade to support a habit and not just
as a businessman. Those
who deal drugs for profit deserve to
spend long times in
custody, those who are addicted benefit little
from such expensive
custody and unless treated while
incarcerated recidivate
quickly. Although agreeing in principle,
the Commission has not
taken a position on specific bills to
accomplish this but
will be reviewing those proposed.
2. Create a
regular system to allow for sentence modification for
geriatric offenders who
pose no threat to the community, but who
consume substantial
correctional resources.
3. Establish a
violation of probation sentence consolidation division
of Superior Court.
This would allow for the consolidation of
multiple sentences,
consolidate VOP hearings, save both the
Department of
Correction and the Court time and money for
multiple hearings as
well as result in more logical sentence
execution.
4. Use day fines
for possession of controlled substances for
personal use and some
other minor offenses.
5. Use Level IV for
driving under the influence offenders
combining treatment,
punishment and control.
In conclusion, we have
found that we are doing a good job of
incapacitating the violent
offenders and thus protecting public safety. We are
through pro active law
enforcement taking guns and drugs off the street. We
are also holding offenders
strictly accountable when on Community
Supervision.
We need however to make
more intelligent use of our expensive
custodial resources where
their use is necessary to protect public safety.
We need to be smarter in how
we sentence and then manage people on
supervision. We need to
focus on the purpose of each criminal sentence.
Finally, we must better
address the rehabilitation of those coming into
our custody. The single most
important goal of the system must be to reduce
recidivism, to prevent new
criminal acts resulting in new victims. With the
violent predator we do this
by incapacitation. With the vast majority of
offenders we must do this
through deterrence and rehabilitation. We believe
our suggestions today help
move us in that direction.
