Patterns of sentencing reform adoption in American states

The first dissertation research objective is the identification and description of state sentencing reforms through May 2000. Policies included for analysis are Victim's Rights Amendments, Megan's Laws, habitual offender laws, mandatory minimums, determinate sentences, abolished discretionary parole release. Sentencing Guidelines, Sentencing Commissions, Three Strikes Laws, and Truth in Sentencing Laws. Data, including year of policy adoption, was gathered on state sentencing practices and reforms from electronic databases, state codes and statutes, and a variety of federal and state documents. Over the study period, these reforms were adopted a total of 328 times. Reforms are common as states adopt an average of 6.5 each. The second research objective investigates patterns of sentencing reform adoption. Adoption patterns are characterized by two distinct waves of sentencing reforms; both 1977 and 1995 were peak years of reform activity. When comparing states based on number of reforms, all states have adopted a basic set of them. These reforms include Megan's Laws, mandatory minimum, and habitual offenders laws. Another finding is the relationship between basic sentence structure and proclivity to adopt other major reforms. Determinate sentencing states are more likely to adopt reforms than indeterminate states. States with Sentencing Guidelines are more active in adopting reforms than states without guidelines. The element of time was also investigated in terms of sentencing reforms. The most and least innovative states adopt a similar number of reforms. The difference is that states adopt them at different relative speeds. Some states with many reforms have slow adoption speeds and vice versa. Factor analysis indicates that many independent processes of diffusion are at work among patterns of sentencing reform adoptions. These factors confirm several complicated processes are intertwined in the reform adoption process. One factor that affects sentencing reform adoption patterns is an increasing federal role in promulgating state sentencing reforms. Three federal approaches to motivating states were discussed: intermediate federal involvement, grants-in-aid programs, and mandates. These are ways that the federal government participates in the diffusion process. A larger federal role in state sentencing practices tums a complicated process into an even more challenging field of study.