An Assessment of the Development and Outcomes of Determinate Sentencing in Florida

• Published date: 01 June 2010
• DOI: 10.3818/JRP.12.1.2010.41
• Date: 01 June 2010
• Subject Matter: Article



* AnAssessmentoftheDevelopmentandOutcomes

 ofDeterminateSentencinginFlorida

William D. Bales

Gerry G. Gaes

Thomas G. Blomberg

Kerensa N. Pate

Florida State University

* Abstract

The prior literature on determinate sentencing has been largely descriptive, critical, and

without a comprehensive empirical focus regarding the development and consequences

of this major justice reform. A common claim made in these prior studies is that deter-

minate sentencing has resulted in our current prison overcrowding crises (i.e., Austin

& Irwin, 2007). This paper responds to this empirical void through an assessment of

Florida’s efforts to implement determinate sentencing over the past 30 years. Included

in the assessment is a study of the comparative effectiveness between indeterminate and

determinate sentencing in terms of post-prison recidivism. The major f‌indings are that

Florida’s incremental shift from indeterminate to determinate sentencing that culmi-

nated in the 85% time-served law passed in 1995 has not been as punitive as expected

and has not been the primary reason for Florida’s exponential increase in the prison

population. Rather, the major increase in Florida’s prison population is found to have

been driven by the increase in felony convictions. Moreover, in a comparison of recidi-

vism outcomes between indeterminate and determinate sentences, it is found that the

85% law has been associated with signif‌icant reductions in the likelihood of recidivism.

While these f‌indings are limited to Florida and, therefore, await further validation with

other states and jurisdictions, it appears that some of the pessimistic conclusions in the

literature on determinate sentencing could be premature.

We thank the Bureau of Research and Data Analysis at the Florida Department of Correc-

tions and the Florida Statistical Analysis Center at the Florida Department of Law Enforce-

ment for providing data for this study, and Brian McManus for assistance in research on

Florida statutes related to Florida’s determinate sentencing policies.

JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2010

© 2010 Justice Research and Statistics Association

Sp e c i a l iS S u e o n Se n t e n c i n g a n d co r r e c t i o n S i n t h e St a t e S

P



The number of offenders in U.S. prisons increased from 319,598 in 1980 to

1.6 million in 2008, a growth of 404% (PEW, 2007; West & Sabol, 2009). Ap-

proximately 725,000 inmates are being released from state and federal prisons

annually. The most recent multistate analysis of released inmates indicates that

within three years of post-release, 67.5% will be rearrested for a new offense,

46.9% will be reconvicted for a new crime, and 51.8% will return to prison for

a new crime resulting from a technical violation (Langan & Levin, 2002).

The unprecedented growth in the number of offenders incarcerated in the

United States over the past three decades has been attributed to the following

factors. First, there was an apparent increase in governmental dissatisfaction

with parole (Palmer, 1984). Parole was generally thought to be too reactive to

public opinion, shifting over time from granting a disproportionate number of

parole releases to granting too few (Palmer, 1984; National Council on Crime

& Delinquency, 2005). Concerns increased whenever a paroled inmate reof-

fended in the community, and the victimization of citizens and their families

inf‌luenced parole boards to reduce the number of paroles granted (Travis &

Lawrence, 2002). Over time, considerable doubt developed about the ability of

parole boards to function in a consistent fashion (Travis & Lawrence, 2002).

Second, early release from prison had resulted from sentence reductions for

good conduct in prison and incentives for participation in work or educational

programs. Other time reductions to control prison crowding had also resulted

in the early release of prisoners (Ditton & Wilson, 1999). These policies permit-

ted correctional off‌icials outside of the judicial system to signif‌icantly inf‌luence

the level of punishment or leniency an offender received by providing a means

to manage the prison population (Ditton & Wilson, 1999).

Third, opinions developed that crime was becoming more of a serious so-

cial problem. In the years leading up to sentencing reforms in the late 1970s

and 1980s, the nation witnessed an increase in crime rates (Stemen, 2006). En-

hanced media coverage of crime and the notion that we were in the midst of a

“crime wave” helped encourage many to believe that signif‌icant changes were

needed to gain control over what was believed to be the increasing problem of

crime (e.g., victim rights movement) (Anderson, 1995).

Fourth, increasing criticism was focused upon indeterminate sentencing

and its emphasis on rehabilitation (Frankel, 1972; Martinson, 1974). The crit-

ics argued that rehabilitation was a failure and much of the research that had

examined the effectiveness of in-prison programs supported the general failure

claims. For example, Martinson’s (1974) “nothing works” conclusion regard-

ing prison rehabilitation programs resonated with policy makers and correc-

tional experts and was one of several catalysts that helped move punishment

strategies away from indeterminate to determinate sentencing.

As a result, more determinate and “get tough” strategies emerged as the

potential solution for dealing with offenders. Emphasis was directed away