skip navigation

Add your conference to our Justice Events calendar


NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection.
To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the NCJRS Abstracts Database.

How to Obtain Documents
NCJ Number: NCJ 187348     Find in a Library
Title: Evaluation of North Carolina's Structured Sentencing Law, Research in Brief
  Document URL: PDF 
  Dataset URL: DATASET 1
Author(s): James J. Collins ; Donna L. Spencer
Corporate Author: RTI International
United States of America
Date Published: 1999
Page Count: 9
  Annotation: This document summarizes the results of a study sponsored by the National Institute of Justice that evaluated the effects of a 1994 legislated sentencing reform in North Carolina.
Abstract: The North Carolina Sentencing and Policy Advisory Commission was created in 1990 to make recommendations on State criminal sentencing policies. The structured sentencing law, adopted in 1993, applies to all felony and misdemeanor crimes, except for driving while impaired, committed on or after October 1, 1994. Structured sentencing represents a new way of sentencing offenders in North Carolina. Judges are provided with specific sentencing options for the type and length of sentence that may be imposed. These sentencing options are derived from calculations of the severity of the crime and are based on previous criminal records. Three types of punishments are stipulated under the structured sentencing law--active punishments (incarceration), intermediate punishments (probation), and community punishments (fines, restitution, treatment or community service). An analysis of structured sentencing in North Carolina found the sentencing approach did not result in major changes in the adjudication process. There was a slight increase in the percentage of misdemeanor defendants with multiple charges and in the percentage of multiple charge felony defendants charged with both felony and misdemeanor offenses. A comparison of dismissals for pre-structured sentencing and structured sentencing time periods indicated the rate of dismissal among misdemeanor defendants was 4 to 5 percent higher under structured sentencing and about 2 percent higher for felony defendants. Results also suggested a small increase in the percentage of structured sentencing defendant episodes with negotiated pleas. Further, court data clearly showed the time required to adjudicate defendants under structured sentencing was 7 to 13 days longer than under the previous sentencing law. The structured sentencing law modified the incentives for prison inmates to follow institutional rules by reducing an inmate's capacity to earn sentencing reductions for good behavior. Compared to inmates sentenced under the previous sentencing law, inmates sentenced under structured sentencing had higher overall infraction rates (25 percent higher for males and 55 percent higher for females). Prior time served had a direct effect on the infraction rate for both sexes in most infraction categories. Age was inversely related to infractions in that, as age increased, the likelihood of involvement in infractions decreased. It was clear that, at least in the early years of structured sentencing, inmates sentenced under the new law posed more difficult prison management challenges than inmates sentenced under the previous sentencing law. Implications of the findings for sentencing reform and the adjudication process are discussed.
Main Term(s): State courts
Index Term(s): Misdemeanor ; Felony ; Punishment ; State laws ; Criminal histories ; Incarceration and Imprisonment ; Community-based corrections (adult) ; Sentencing reform ; Sentence effectiveness ; Intermediate sanctions ; Inmate misconduct ; NIJ grant-related documents ; North Carolina
Sponsoring Agency: National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
US Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
United States of America
Grant Number: 96-CE-VX-0013
Publication Number: RTI Project No. 6780
Sale Source: RTI International
P.O. Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
United States of America
Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
Country: United States of America
Language: English
Note: See NCJ-187349 for Final Report
  To cite this abstract, use the following link:

* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.