STATEMENT

of

JUDGE THOMAS W. TANNER

CHAIRMAN, LOUISIANA SENTENCING COMMISSION

on the

BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE'S PROPOSAL
affecting the

NATIONAL STRUCTURED SENTENCING PROGRAM

before the

SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

April 3, 1990

I am Judge Thomas W. Tanner, retired, Chairman of the Louisiana Sentencing Commission. On behalf of the commission, I thank you for the opportunity to present this statement on the recent Bureau of Justice Assistance's proposal affecting the National Structured Sentencing Program.

The National Structured Sentencing Program was first created under the Justice Assistance Act of 1984, Discretionary Grant Program FY 1987. Since its inception, four states (Louisiana, Tennessee, Oregon, South Carolina) and the District of Columbia have been major participants in the program and six states (Ohio, Kansas, North Carolina, Colorado, Oklahoma, Alaska, Maine) have received significant technical assistance.

In each case, the program has proven to be very successful; not only in terms of jurisdictions developing sanction structures which meet the needs of the particular states, but also in terms

of each state developing new approaches to the complex issues These developments then contribute to the overall

involved.

state-of-the-art and its continued improvement.

For example, the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, the pioneer in the area of structured sentencing, is currently rethinking some of its work in light of new developments in Louisiana and Oregon. The courts occupy a pivotal position in the criminal justice system, since no formal action can be taken against an offender absent some action by a court. Further, public confidence in the criminal justice system centers on the confidence placed in the court system. It is the courts which must conduct the criminal proceedings, determine the guilt or innocence of a defendant, and mete out the appropriate sanction to the convicted offender. If the public were to lose confidence in the courts, it would amount to losing confidence in the American system of justice.

This said, it is easy to see why the proper functioning of the courts, in general, and sentencing, in particular, is of vital importance to the national war on drugs. More specifically, structured sentencing is a proven approach to insuring that drug and other serious offenders are prosecuted and sanctioned in a uniform and consistent manner. This efficiency is extremely important from at least two perspectives.

First, drug arrests per se do little to dissuade the drug offender, unless there is some certainty of punishment which follows in a timely manner.

Second, the public must perceive that drug offenders are punished swiftly and with certainty without favoritism.

The

promotion and improvement of structured sentencing, then, is a vital part of the war on drugs.

Our major concern with the recent action of the Bureau of Justice Assistance relative to the National Structured Sentencing Program is simply this: Why take a program of such importance, which is working very well from the perspective of the states, and radically change it? Why replace a proven program with a program which lacks a track record? Why ignore the instructions of the Senate Committee on Appropriations to continue the program and change the fundamental nature of it and hand it over to a new

provider?

The National Structured Sentencing Program, as originally designed, contained two components: (1) seed money for the

states to begin the process of developing a variety of structured sentencing which meets the unique needs of the particular states involved; and (2) technical assistance from the National Program

Coordinator to the states.

The proposal made by the Bureau of Justice Assistance in its FY 1990 Discretionary Grant Spending Plan (not released until six months into the fiscal year) eliminates the first component and radically alters the second. The seed money provided to the states was never more than just that, seed money. In Louisiana, for example, the National Program contributed $125,000 over a two year period, while the state appropriation for the same period amounted to nearly $500,000. The seed money was important in getting the process started in the state, but in the long run it is up to the state to pay for what it needs. The removal of seed

money funding from the FY 1990 spending plan sends a signal to the states that the Department of Justice is not terribly interested in structured sentencing. This indifference is a major error if the states are to effectively deal with the war on drugs.

The second component, technical assistance provided through a National Program Coordinator, was significantly altered in two respects. First, the technical assistance provider was changed from the Institute for Rational Public Policy to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The Institute for Rational Public Policy is staffed by individuals with extensive experience in the development of structured sentencing mechanisms at the state

level.

Further, its staff not only has experience from more than one state but has in fact participated in the development of every state sentencing project in existence in the U.S. as well as assisting in sentencing projects in Australia and Canada. Obviously, the Institute has developed tremendous resources and expertise in assisting the various jurisdictions to resolve complex systematic and programatic problems arising from diverse court structures and sentencing policies.

The Institute has performed its work well for the past three years, and many states, including Louisiana, have come to depend heavily on its expertise in order to avoid the many pitfalls always present in an issue as complex as sentencing.

The replacement of the Institute by the U.S. Sentencing Commission is problematic in two respects. First, it replaces a known provider of high quality technical assistance with a

provider without an established track record at the state level. Second, it replaces a technical assistance provider who, by virtue of having worked with the states over the past several years, is very familiar with state specific issues and the proven methods for resolving these issues in a manner consistent with state policy. Any new technical assistance provider, however well qualified, will face a considerable learning curve, and for that reason alone, can provide little meaningful assistance for at least six months to one year. This type of delay could prove disastrous to several states which face tight time lines.

Taken together, the two major changes (elimination of the funding to the states, and the change in the technical assistance provider) radically changes the nature of the program. Under the Bureau of Justice Assistance proposal there is no national program, just a national technical assistance provider. What destroys the national program in the proposal is that there is now no way to bring the states together to work on common problems relating to structured sentencing. When state funding was provided, the technical assistance provider was also the National Program Coordinator. This meant, among other things, that one entity was responsible for monitoring the diverse developments in the several states working on structured sentencing and coordinating their efforts. permitted a systemmatic development of the state-of-the-art, which could be shared among the states. development should not be underestimated.

This, in turn,

The importance of this

Structured sentencing

is a highly complex issue, performed by very diverse and complex