Sentencing—the nature and duration of the penalty a court imposes on people convicted of a crime—often draws a lot of attention in election years, and 2018 was no exception. Whether candidates for state or federal office were running on “tough on crime” platforms or advocating justice reform, sentencing made the news. And, as in most election years, results throughout the country were mixed.
Maryland and Kentucky enacted laws lengthening sentences for some violent offenses, while Ohio and Missouri focused on reducing criminal justice spending and reinvesting those savings in community solutions to crime.
At the ballot box, Louisiana voters upended a Jim Crow-era law that allowed non-unanimous jury verdicts in felony cases. Florida voters approved Amendment 11 to the state’s constitution, which allows reforms of criminal justice statutes to be retroactive and could result in release for people serving time for certain drug offenses. And Michigan, Missouri, Utah, and Vermont added their names to the roster of states that have legalized marijuana use.
The Trump administration sent mixed messages on criminal justice reform. Former Attorney General Jeff Sessions favored strict, lengthy sentences, and his successor, William Barr, has a history of pro-incarceration rhetoric. But President Trump signed the FIRST STEP Act into law, a criminal justice package that has been hailed as a positive step toward reform by allowing incarcerated people to earn good time credits to reduce their sentences and making changes to certain mandatory minimum sentences. Some, however, have called the measure too modest and criticized its exclusion of certain individuals under supervision of the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) from the benefits of the new law, as well as for its controversial use of risk assessment instruments.Viewed holistically, the FIRST STEP Act’s deficits may perpetuate—and potentially deepen—racial disparities in federal corrections, even as the law reduces the overall number of people under BOP supervision.