skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 247085 Add to Shopping cart Find in a Library
Title: Assessing Judicial Sentencing Preferences After Public Safety Realignment: A Survey of California Judges
Author(s): Robert Weisberg; Lisa T. Quan
Date Published: January 2014
Page Count: 143
Sponsoring Agency: James Irvine Foundation
San Francisco, CA 94105
National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Washington, DC 20531
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
Grant Number: 2012-IJ-CX-0002
Sale Source: NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States of America
Document: PDF
Type: Report (Grant Sponsored); Report (Study/Research); Research (Applied/Empirical); Survey
Format: Document (Online)
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This study surveyed 112 California Superior Court (trial) judges, who represented 35 California counties (96 percent of the State’s population), about their experiences under the State’s Public Safety Realignment (“AB 109”), which has transferred authority for the supervision of most non-violent, non-serious, and non-sexual offenders from the State to the 58 counties.
Abstract: The judges focused on sentencing parameters as the key to managing the types of offenders that have become the responsibility of the counties. Judges sentencing preferences generally included a combination of a “taste of jail” and rigorous community supervision. Among judges who preferred this split sentence, however, there was a significant variation in the chosen fraction between jail time and time on community supervision. When judges impose a split sentence, they can also determine whether or not to mandate treatment. Any violation of the conditions of that supervision will result in a return to jail for a period up to the end of the original maximum sentence. The Realignment legislation (AB 109) does not provide any rules or criteria to guide the judiciary in determining whether to split a sentence or how much of the split sentence should be on supervision, or the proper conditions of that supervision. Judges currently have full discretion as to the fraction of the split sentence that should be served in jail and under mandatory supervision. Based on these findings, this report recommends that the California Legislature and/or the California judiciary clarify the relationship between traditional felony probation (no jail time) and a split sentence. There should also be consensus and guidance on when and how to use split sentences. In addition, counties should improve and increase the availability of effective community-based treatment resources. Improved treatment programs in the context of community supervision will likely increase judges’ confidence in using probation without jail time. 24 tables, 4 figures, a 23-item bibliography, and appended judicial survey, judicial survey results, and demographic and other information
Main Term(s): Sentencing trends
Index Term(s): Alternatives to Incarceration; California; County courts; Judges; Sentencing/Sanctions; Split sentences
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 website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.