NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.
The LFC is only preparing FIRs on bills referred to the Senate Finance Committee, the Senate Ways and Means Committee, the House Appropriations and Finance Committee and the House Taxation and Revenue Committee. The chief clerks are responsible for preparing and issuing all other bill analyses.
Only the most recent FIR version, excluding attachments, is available on the Intranet. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC office in Room 416 of the State Capitol Building.
| SPONSOR: | Pederson | DATE TYPED: | 02/04/99 | HB | 225 | ||
| SHORT TITLE: | Sentencing Standards Act | SB | |||||
| ANALYST: | O'Connell | ||||||
| Recurring
or Non-Rec |
Fund
Affected | ||||
| FY99 | FY2000 | FY99 | FY2000 | ||
| Unknown | Unknown | ||||
(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)
Duplicates/Conflicts with/Companion to/Relates to
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Administrative Office of the Courts analysis
Administrative Office of the District Attorneys analysis
Public Defender Department analysis
Department of Public Safety analysis
SUMMARY
Synopsis of Bill
House Bill 225 would create the Sentencing Standards Act and applies to felony sentencing. The bill assigns most felony offenses a presumptive sanction; presumptive prison, presumptive non-prison (jail or probation) and presumptive penalties and fines. Mandatory prison time under firearm, old age and habitual offender enhancements shall be imposed unless the sentencing court makes a specific finding that justice will not be served by imposing the mandatory sentence of imprisonment and there are substantial and compelling reasons for not imposing it.
Significant Issues
The Sentencing Standards Act is designed to afford sentencing courts greater discretion in regard to felony defendants who can make a compelling record for departure from mandatory sentencing provisions. According to Public Defender Department analysis, the Act could reduce the number of unnecessary trials and allow for a more cost effective alternative for sentencing hearings.
According to the Criminal and Juvenile Justice Coordinating Council, the results of the Act in the first year would be to divert 315 offenders into alternative sanctions at a cost savings of $4.3 million compared to traditional sentencing methods.
According to Administrative Office of the District Attorneys analysis, the Act would limit prosecutorial discretion and does not account for regional sensibilities regarding crime and punishment.
BOC/njw