Brandeis's Laboratories of Sentencing and Corrections: Making Better Use of Knowledge from the States

• Author: Kevin R. Reitz
• Published date: 01 June 2010
• Date: 01 June 2010
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3818/JRP.12.1.2010.169
• Subject Matter: Special Issue on Sentencing and Corrections in the States



*









Kevin R. Reitz

University of Minnesota

* Abstract

State criminal justice systems have great opportunities to learn from the successes and fail-

ures of other states. Justice Brandeis famously called the states “laboratories” for innova -

tion in law and policy. Yet researchers, policy makers, and law makers have done too little

to exploit this unique American resource. This article highlights a number of issues in the

f‌ield of sentencing and corrections that jump forward from a combined reading of all the

articles published in this volume. The subjects are: (1) a suggestion for improvement on the

current model for state-based research in criminal justice; (2) the pressing need to attend

to policy issues at the “back end” of the sentencing chronology; (3) the growing use of risk

assessment technology at various stages of the sentencing process; (4) the need to embrace

less-than-perfect solutions; and (5) the need to develop new policy approaches to combat

racial and ethnic disparities among those sentenced.

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



Winston Churchill said that “democracy is the worst form of Government except

all those other forms that have been tried from time to time” (Churchill, 1947).

American sentencing systems must likewise be ranked on a “least worse” scale.

There is no jurisdiction in the United States, state or federal, that can afford to be

complacent about its approach to sentencing and corrections. Even the “cutting-

edge” systems, those that are admired and emulated in other places, have serious

shortfalls. Accordingly, the better systems are those that are deliberately construct-

ed to monitor themselves, self-assess, and evolve in a continuous fashion (Ameri-

can Law Institute, 2007). Sentencing policy makers should constantly be working

to improve on the status quo.

If this is the right attitude, then the United States—at least in theory—is one of

the best endowed places in the world. Justice Louis Brandeis famously suggested

that the American states could be seen as laboratories of innovation (Brandeis,

1932). Within our federal system, dozens of governments strive independently to

address common problems. Not only is there wide diversity of practice, and much

opportunity for trial and error, but there is reason to believe that lessons learned

in one state will be practicably transferrable to others. While it may often be un-

realistic to transplant the best ideas from Germany to New York, or from Finland

to Texas (Pizzi, 1993), there is a rich fund of readily applicable best practices that

arise from comparative study within the United States.1

One great shortcoming of crime policy in the United States is that we do so

little to exploit this unique resource. While we should have mountains of knowl-

edge from state systems, we do little to create that knowledge base or organize

and attend to it when it exists. State governmental criminal justice data, although

better in some jurisdictions than others, is in most places inadequate—and in-

compatible with the information generated in other states. Even crime statistics at

the state and local levels are of unconscionably poor quality; indeed, because of

habits of dependence on police records (which are notoriously unreliable), states

and localities do nothing to inquire into true rates of victimization (Ruth & Reitz,

2003). This in itself is a formidable obstacle. If we have no credible crime mea-

sures for individual cities and states, we are badly handicapped in the evaluation

of crime-reductive policies.

The papers assembled in this issue help f‌ill in the state-specif‌ic literature of

sentencing and corrections. A great deal of criminal justice experience is recount-

ed in this volume. The table of contents includes articles about several of the most

populous states in the nation. When all of the issue’s contributions are bundled

together as a whole, some large themes emerge about contemporary policy de-

bates in sentencing and corrections. The articles help us identify what issues have

1 I do not denigrate the importance of comparative study across national lines. Rather,

I seek to underscore the unique opportunities within the United States for domestic com-

parative study of criminal justice systems.