Wisconsin has already had two sentencing commissions, now both defunct. \u00a0Is it time to think about a third? \u00a0Sentencing commissions have proven their worth over the long haul in a number of other states, including Minnesota, North Carolina, and Virginia. \u00a0A successful sentencing commission promulgates guidelines that channel judicial sentencing discretion and reduce sentencing disparities, collects and analyzes sentencing data in order to support evidence-based decision making, and provides information and recommendations to the legislature than can help to blunt some of the political system\u2019s tendencies to excessive harshness. \u00a0Although it is certainly not cost-free, a good commission may ultimately save the state far more than is required to fund its operations.<\/p>\n
With these considerations in mind, the latest edition of the Marquette University Law School Poll asked respondents their views of commissions and of judicial sentencing discretion. \u00a0(For my earlier posts on the Poll, see\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0here<\/a>.) \u00a0The results indicate that there is substantial support for a commission, but that Wisconsinites also appreciate what their locally elected judges bring to the table as sentencers. \u00a0<\/p>\n In response to the key question on sentencing commissions (27g), 61% of respondents agreed that \u201c[i]t would be better to have an expert sentencing commission set state sentencing policies, rather than elected politicians.\u201d \u00a0With only 23% disagreeing, views ran almost 3 to 1 in favor of a commission.<\/p>\n But the question was not without its ambiguities. \u00a0What does it mean to \u201cset state sentencing policies\u201d? \u00a0Would that include promulgating binding sentencing guidelines? \u00a0Advisory guidelines? \u00a0Also, how many of the \u201cagree\u201d respondents, if any, thought, \u201cI\u2019d really rather not have any statewide sentencing policies at all, but if\u00a0someone<\/em>\u00a0is going to create statewide policies, I\u2019d prefer to have an expert commission over the elected politicians.\u201d \u00a0Relatedly, if the Poll indicates greater trust in a commission than in \u201celected politicians,\u201d where do judges fit in? \u00a0They are elected, but we don\u2019t normally think of them as politicians in the same sense that legislators are.<\/p>\n Additional questions focused on judges more specifically. \u00a0For instance, respondents were asked whether they agreed that \u201cjudges in Wisconsin treat criminals too leniently.\u201d \u00a0Opinion was closely divided, but, with the \u201cdisagrees\u201d beating the \u201cagrees\u201d 42% to 36%, there does not seem to be a strong, widespread view that Wisconsin judges are too soft.<\/p>\n On the flipside, are Wisconsin judges seen as too\u00a0tough<\/em>? \u00a0Probably not \u2014 only 27% felt that \u201c[m]any of the people who are locked up in prison do not deserve to be there.\u201d \u00a0(27d)<\/p>\n One perceived strength of sentencing judges is suggested by 27f: 52% of respondents agreed, and only 30% disagreed, that \u201csentencing judges do a good job of taking into account the needs and perspectives of crime victims.\u201d<\/p>\n Another potential strength of sentencing judges is their ability to take into account local circumstances when fashioning a sentence. \u00a0Such localization is, of course, in tension with the competing goal of statewide uniformity in sentencing. \u00a0Wisconsinites seem closely divided on this question of localization versus uniformity, but\u00a027h suggests that localization may have a bit more support: when asked whether \u201c[i]t is important for Wisconsin to have uniform, statewide sentencing policies, even if that means that judges have less freedom to take into account local needs and values in determining sentences,\u201d only 41% agreed, while 48% disagreed.<\/p>\n In sum, on sentencing matters, it seems that Wisconsinites have more confidence in an expert commission than in elected politicians. \u00a0On the other hand, there does not seem to be widespread concern about the performance of the state\u2019s sentencing judges, and there is some real appreciation for the ability of judges to tailor sentences based on victim needs and local circumstances. \u00a0A new Wisconsin sentencing commission might play a valuable role as a source of information and analysis for policymakers and sentencing judges \u2014 possibly, but not necessarily, embodied in the form of advisory sentencing guidelines \u2014 but\u00a0mandatory\u00a0<\/em>guidelines might be seen by many as undercutting some important benefits of judicial sentencing discretion.<\/p>\n Cross posted at Life Sentences Blog.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Wisconsin has already had two sentencing commissions, now both defunct. \u00a0Is it time to think about a third? \u00a0Sentencing commissions have proven their worth over the long haul in a number of other states, including Minnesota, North Carolina, and Virginia. \u00a0A successful sentencing commission promulgates guidelines that channel judicial sentencing discretion and reduce sentencing disparities, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ocean_post_layout":"","ocean_both_sidebars_style":"","ocean_both_sidebars_content_width":0,"ocean_both_sidebars_sidebars_width":0,"ocean_sidebar":"","ocean_second_sidebar":"","ocean_disable_margins":"enable","ocean_add_body_class":"","ocean_shortcode_before_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_after_top_bar":"","ocean_shortcode_before_header":"","ocean_shortcode_after_header":"","ocean_has_shortcode":"","ocean_shortcode_after_title":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_widgets":"","ocean_shortcode_before_footer_bottom":"","ocean_shortcode_after_footer_bottom":"","ocean_display_top_bar":"default","ocean_display_header":"default","ocean_header_style":"","ocean_center_header_left_menu":"","ocean_custom_header_template":"","ocean_custom_logo":0,"ocean_custom_retina_logo":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_width":0,"ocean_custom_logo_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_tablet_max_height":0,"ocean_custom_logo_mobile_max_height":0,"ocean_header_custom_menu":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_family":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_subset":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_size":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_font_size_unit":"px","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_font_weight_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_tablet":"","ocean_menu_typo_transform_mobile":"","ocean_menu_typo_line_height":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_line_height_unit":"","ocean_menu_typo_spacing":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_tablet":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_mobile":0,"ocean_menu_typo_spacing_unit":"","ocean_menu_link_color":"","ocean_menu_link_color_hover":"","ocean_menu_link_color_active":"","ocean_menu_link_background":"","ocean_menu_link_hover_background":"","ocean_menu_link_active_background":"","ocean_menu_social_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_bg":"","ocean_menu_social_links_color":"","ocean_menu_social_hover_links_color":"","ocean_disable_title":"default","ocean_disable_heading":"default","ocean_post_title":"","ocean_post_subheading":"","ocean_post_title_style":"","ocean_post_title_background_color":"","ocean_post_title_background":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_image_position":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_attachment":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_repeat":"","ocean_post_title_bg_image_size":"","ocean_post_title_height":0,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay":0.5,"ocean_post_title_bg_overlay_color":"","ocean_disable_breadcrumbs":"default","ocean_breadcrumbs_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_separator_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_color":"","ocean_breadcrumbs_links_hover_color":"","ocean_display_footer_widgets":"default","ocean_display_footer_bottom":"default","ocean_custom_footer_template":"","ocean_post_oembed":"","ocean_post_self_hosted_media":"","ocean_post_video_embed":"","ocean_link_format":"","ocean_link_format_target":"self","ocean_quote_format":"","ocean_quote_format_link":"post","ocean_gallery_link_images":"on","ocean_gallery_id":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[30,122,14],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17862","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-criminal-justice","category-public","category-criminal-law","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17862","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17862"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17862\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17862"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17862"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/law.marquette.edu\/facultyblog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17862"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}