A study by the National Center for State Courts found that Virginia’s criminal sentencing guidelines are effective in making sentencing more consistent and limiting undesirable disparity.

 

             The study, Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing: A Comparative Study in Three States, examined the guidelines systems in Virginia, Michigan and Minnesota. 

 

             Nationwide, 20 states and the District of Columbia have adopted sentencing guidelines in recent years. Virginia’s guidelines system was adopted in 1994, when parole was abolished and truth-in-sentencing legislation was enacted.

 

            The National Center’s study focused on sentencing data and practices in the three states to try to determine the degree to which their guidelines: produced consistency in sentencing, meaning that like cases were treated alike; provided meaningful and proportional distinctions between more serious and less serious offenders; and minimized the effects of factors that should not play a role in sentencing decisions, such as age, race, gender and geographic location of offenders.

 

            Virginia’s sentencing guidelines are voluntary. Judges are not required to impose the sentences called for by the guidelines and the sentence ranges specified in the guidelines are wider than those in the other two states. Minnesota, on the other hand, has a relatively strict system in which the guidelines establish fixed, presumptive sentences. Michigan’s guidelines allow judges somewhat more discretion than Minnesota’s. In both Minnesota and Michigan, departures from guidelines-recommended ranges are permitted only if “substantial and compelling” circumstances warrant it; and departures are subject to appellate court review.

 

            The three states require judges to use worksheets to evaluate each case and offender. Variables related to the crime as well as the defendant and his or her prior criminal record are considered. Completion of the worksheets produces a recommended sentence or sentence range. 

 

In Virginia, each type of offense has a set of conduct variables that apply to that offense; for example, in the case of burglary of a dwelling, aspects of the crime that are scored include whether the dwelling was occupied, whether the crime occurred at night, and whether a deadly weapon was used. Virginia’s worksheets also include up to 10 variables related to the offender’s prior record. The recommended sentencing ranges are based on past sentencing decisions.

 

            Since adherence to the guideline recommendations is voluntary in Virginia, judges may impose sentences that depart from the recommended ranges; however, when they do so, they are still required to review and sign the worksheets, and provide written explanations for departing from the recommendations. Judges in Michigan and Minnesota must also explain their departures in writing.

 

            Both Minnesota and Virginia have active sentencing commissions that monitor the use of their guidelines, Virginia’s being among the most active of all guidelines states, according to the researchers. Michigan’s commission was abolished several years ago.

 

            The study found that all three guidelines systems produce greater consistency in deciding who goes to prison and for how long. Like cases are being treated alike and increases or decreases in sentence severity are proportional to the seriousness of the offense and the prior record of the offender. The study noted: “These findings stand in marked contrast to the inconsistent and discriminatory sentencing practices documented in all three states prior to the implementation of guidelines.”

 

            The study also found that guidelines reduce disparities due to factors such as race, age and geography that should not play a role in sentencing decisions. Even systems like Virginia’s, with wide sentencing ranges in the guidelines and no requirement that judges follow the guideline recommendations, shows no measurable discrimination, according to the study.

 

            The report notes that active participation by a sentencing commission is an essential part of any guidelines system. The authors point out that guidelines “…are no more self-sustaining over time than they are self-executing at inception.” Thus, according to the report, commissions play a key quality control role. The Virginia Criminal Sentencing Commission, with members appointed by the Chief Justice, the Governor and both Houses of the General Assembly, was cited as an example of a very active commission.