Criminal Justice Policy Innovation in the States

• Date: 01 September 2003
• Published date: 01 September 2003
• Author: Jackson Williams
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403403252456
• Subject Matter: Journal Article

10.1177/0887403403252456ARTICLECRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003Williams / CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY INNOVATION

Criminal Justice Policy

Innovation in the States

Jackson Williams

Public Citizen’s Congress Watch

Theearly1990ssawaflurryofactivityincriminaljusticelegislationon both the state

and federal levels. By Januaryof 1993, pollsters found that crime had overtaken eco-

nomicissuesasthecountry’smost important problem. During this time, four criminal

justice policy innovations became popular with both state and federal officials:

“Truth-in-Sentencing” laws, “Three-Strikes-You’re-Out” laws, “boot camps” for

convicted offenders, and juvenile court transfer provisions. This study attempts to

determine what factors influenced states’adoptions of these innovations. It finds that

states’crime rates were positively correlated with adoption of the measures,but other

objective state factors, such as sentence length, werenot. Strained state resources did

not deter legislatures fromenacting these policies. Voter ideology and political cul-

ture had less than expected impact. The study concludes that political entrepreneurs,

rather than state characteristics, were responsible for adoption.

Keywords: legislation; state; corrections

The early 1990s saw a flurry of activity in criminal justice legislation on

both the state and federal levels. In 1991, the percentage of Americans cit-

ing crime in response to the survey question “What do you think is the most

important problem facing this country today?” began to edge upward. By

January of 1993, crime overtook economic issues as the most frequent

response to the question, a reign that lasted for about 2 years (Gallup Orga-

nization, 1999).

During this time, four criminal justice policy innovations became popu-

lar with both state and federal officials: “Truth-in-Sentencing” laws,

“Three-Strikes-You’re-Out” laws, “boot camps” for convicted offenders,

and juvenile court transfer provisions. This study attempts to determine

what factors influenced states’ adoptions of these innovations.

•Truth-in-sentencing (TIS) laws were aimed at reducing early releases of con-

victed offenders from prison. In many states, prison inmates are allowed a

401

Criminal Justice Policy Review, Volume 14, Number 3, September 2003 401-422

DOI: 10.1177/0887403403252456

© 2003 Sage Publications

one-day reduction in their sentences for every day of good behavior.

Whereas day-for-day “good time” assisted prison administrators by creating

incentives for good inmate behavior and by serving as a safety valve in over-

crowded facilities, the nationwide average percentage of time served by

offendersrelative to sentences was 48% (Greenfield, 1995). Well-publicized

crimes committed by offenders released early became a rallying point for

politicians interested in the crime issue. The solution offered by TIS was a

guarantee that offenders would serve at least 85% of their sentences behind

bars. By 1997, 27 states had adopted TIS, all but 5 of them between 1993 and

1997 (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1998).

•Three-strikes-you’re-out laws were also inspired by well-publicized inci-

dences of recidivism. Nearly every state had, prior in 1993, “habitual

offender” laws that enhanced sentences for repeat violations. Many, but not

all, of these laws mandated life sentences for a third offense. Three Strikes

laws were intended to apply mandatory life sentences to more offenders.

Between 1993 and 1995, 24 states adopted Three Strikes laws (Clarke, Aus-

tin, & Henry, 1998).

•Boot camp was the term applied to so-called “impact incarceration” pro-

grams. Offenders would be offered the opportunity to serve reduced sen-

tences under more stringent conditions, including the discipline traditionally

imposed in military boot camp training facilities. Offenders were also to be

offered some type of education and training along with the discipline. By

1995, 29 states had instituted boot camp facilities (Cowles, Castellano, &

Gransky, 1995).

•Althoughprosecution of juvenile offenders typically takes place in a juvenile

court, every state has laws allowing juveniles to be prosecuted in adult crimi-

nal courts under certain circumstances. Between 1992 and 1995, “all but ten

states adopted or modified laws making it easier to prosecute juveniles in

criminal courts” (Torbet et al., 1996). The legal mechanisms to allow the

“juvenile transfers” are judicial waivers, whereby a judge has discretion to

transfer a prosecution; direct file provisions, which give the prosecutor dis-

cretion to file in criminal rather than juvenile court; and statutory exclusions,

which mandate prosecution in criminal court for certain classes of offenders

or offenses.

This study examines factors that may have influenced states to adopt

these policies during the 1993-1995 period. In applying the techniques that

the field of political science uses to study policy innovation, I hope to shed

light on one of the questions criminologists have long pondered—why does

a society make and have particular criminal laws?

402 CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY REVIEW / September 2003