Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

Imprisonment Inertia and Public Attitudes Toward Truth in Sentencing

Post author:Michael M. O'Hear
Post published:March 31, 2014
Post category:Criminal Law & Process Legal Scholarship Public Wisconsin Criminal Law & Process

I’ve posted a number of times about the interesting results of the Marquette Law School Poll regarding the attitudes of Wisconsin voters toward truth in sentencing and early release from prison (e.g., here and here). I’ve now finished a more in-depth analysis of the survey data with Professor Darren Wheelock of Marquette’s Department of Social and Cultural Sciences. Our results are discussed in a new paper on SSRN (available here). The abstract sets forth a little more of the context and key findings:

In the space of a few short years in the 1990s, forty-two states adopted truth in sentencing (“TIS”) laws, which eliminated or greatly curtailed opportunities for criminal defendants to obtain parole release from prison. In the following decade, the pendulum seemingly swung in the opposite direction, with thirty-six states adopting new early release opportunities for prisoners. However, few of these initiatives had much impact, and prison populations continued to rise. The TIS ideal remained strong. In the hope of developing a better understanding of these trends and of the prospects for more robust early release reforms in the future, the authors analyzed the results of public opinion surveys of hundreds of Wisconsin voters in 2012 and 2013. Notable findings include the following: (1) public support for TIS is strong and stable; (2) support for TIS results less from fear of crime than from a dislike of the parole decisionmaking process (which helps to explain why support for TIS has remained strong even as crime rates have fallen sharply); (3) support for TIS is not absolute and inflexible, but is balanced against such competing objectives as cost-reduction and offender rehabilitation, (4) a majority of the public would favor release as early as the halfway point in a prison sentence if public safety would not be threatened, and (5) a majority would prefer to have release decisions made by a commission of experts instead of a judge.

Entitled “Imprisonment Inertia and Public Attitudes Toward ‘Truth in Sentencing,’” our paper will be published in early 2015 in the BYU Law Review.

Congratulations to the 2014 Jenkins Honors Moot Court Competition Finalists

Post author:Melissa Love Koenig
Post published:March 27, 2014
Post category:Legal Writing Marquette Law School Public

Congratulations to this year’s Jenkins Honors Moot Court Competition finalists: Amy Heart, Jennifer McNamee, Elizabeth Oestreich, and Frank Remington. All the competitors presented strong oral arguments tonight.

Thank you to the judges of the semifinal round: Hon. Michael Bohren, Hon. G. Michael Halfenger, Hon. Donald Hassin, Hon. Nancy Joseph, Hon. Joan Kessler, Hon. JoAnne Kloppenburg.

The final round will be held on Wednesday, April 2 at 6:00 p.m. in the Appellate Courtroom. The teams will be matched as follows:

Team 2, Jennifer McNamee and Elizabeth Oestreich v. Team 8, Amy Heart and Frank Remington.

Best of luck to the finalists.

Majority Opinion on “Obamacare” Doesn’t Lie in Either Extreme

Post author:Alan J. Borsuk
Post published:March 26, 2014
Post category:Health Care Marquette Law School Public

As is so often the case, the focus in news reporting on the fresh results of the Marquette Law School Poll, released on Wednesday, was on the race for governor, with Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s lead over Democratic challenger Mary Burke holding steady from the prior round of polling in January. (Walker led 48 percent to 41 percent this time, compared to 47 percent to 41 percent then.)

But there is a lot more in each round of polling, both results that shed richer light on voters’ views related to candidates and voters’ views on issues. Distinguished Fellow Mike Gousha looks at some of the former in his posting on this blog, which can be found by clicking here. Permit me to look at one aspect of the latter, the results related to the new federal health law, often called Obamacare — results which don’t get much time in the spotlight.

Professor Charles Franklin, director of the Marquette Law School Poll, pointed to one of the most interesting results related to health care in his discussion of the results with Gousha on Wednesday. Put simply: There isn’t much political mileage to be gained from being either strongly in favor or strongly opposed to the federal law. What the majority of those who were polled said they want is to keep the new law but improve it. Specifically, only 8 percent want to keep the law the way it is, only 18 percent want to see it repealed and not replaced. But 52 percent want it improved, while another 18 percent said they want it repealed but replaced with an alternative. That’s 70 percent who want a better plan than Obamacare, but still want a federal health care law (presumably in addition to or expanding on Medicare and Medicaid).