Lawmakers Urged to Grasp Criminal Code Before Undertaking Reforms

Recent discussions surrounding Arizona’s criminal justice system have brought to light significant misunderstandings about the state’s truth-in-sentencing laws. Critics argue that these laws can lead to confusion among legislators, complicating efforts to implement meaningful reforms in the state’s criminal code.

Kurt Altman has highlighted the alleged issues within the truth-in-sentencing framework. He presented a scenario involving two inmates serving ten-year sentences. According to Altman, one inmate could potentially serve eight-and-a-half years after reforming himself, while the other, who fails to improve, would face the same timeline. This claim has been challenged as misleading.

In reality, any inmate who commits major infractions loses various privileges and effectively forfeits earned release credits. This process affects their eligibility for release, often resulting in extended incarceration. Inmates classified as “parole class three,” essentially serving flat time, cannot accrue release credits until they demonstrate a year of good behavior. The system mandates that disciplinary records are accurately reflected in release dates, complicating matters for those who misbehave.

The truth-in-sentencing laws serve as a dual mechanism, rewarding good behavior while also holding inmates accountable. Those maintaining a clean record can reclaim forfeited credits after a specified period, but failure to do so extends their time in custody. For the misbehaving prisoners, the reality can mean serving the entirety of their sentences. Even upon release, these individuals are subjected to community supervision for a substantial period, requiring ongoing compliance.

Additionally, inmates convicted of minor drug offenses can benefit from accelerated release credits if they fulfill rehabilitation program requirements and avoid disciplinary issues. This provides an avenue for reducing sentences to approximately 70% under ideal conditions, making it essential that inmates engage in self-improvement efforts.

To enhance Arizona’s criminal law, focus must shift towards reassessing sentencing lengths for non-violent offenses. There’s a pressing need for more diversion options within the judicial system, allowing judges to exercise discretion to divert suitable candidates from prison. Reinstating parole systems could foster independence in evaluating prisoners’ readiness for release, promoting a balanced approach to justice.

Ultimately, a thorough understanding of Arizona’s intricate criminal code is vital for legislators, lobbyists, and stakeholders aiming to foster substantive reforms. It is imperative to recognize the principle of earned release credits, emphasizing that an inmate’s behavior directly influences their eligibility for reduced sentences.

Donna Hamm serves as the executive director of Middle Ground Prison Reform, based in Tempe.