Pubdate: Mon, 16 Mar 1998 Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Author: David Doege of the Journal Sentinel staff Contact: (414) 224-8280 Website: http://www.jsonline.com/ INMATES OFTEN OUT TOO SOON, REPORT SAYS Think Tank Says It's Tough For Public To Assess System Plea bargaining, concurrent sentences and early parole, among other things, are undermining the efficacy of the criminal justice system and leaving felons serving "relatively lenient" prison terms, according to a report to be released today. Few felons are receiving maximum sentences, and an overcrowded prison system is sending convicts home earlier than ever because of a shortage of space, according to the report from a 2 1/2-year study by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute. "The overall result, according to our study and other data, is a system of sentencing in which most convicted offenders don't go to prison and those who do serve relatively short sentences," the report says. The study also concludes that sparse case file information makes understanding the criminal justice system, its shortcomings and its judges' practices extremely difficult for the average person. Judicial terminology and "nomenclature in which words are disconnected from their normal meaning" -- such as the use of "low-risk" to describe property offenders such as burglars -- confuse the public, according to the report. "Meaningful public access to information is limited," the report says. "Much information we reviewed for this study is confidential and not even available for public inspection." Players in the criminal justice system who reviewed the report agreed that it is hard for most people to evaluate what happens in the courts and said the report does make some other good points. However, they also questioned the authors' methodology, many of their conclusions and the use of specific cases to serve as examples for their conclusions. The study and the report it generated were prepared by George Mitchell, a public policy researcher from Milwaukee, and David Dodenhoff, a visiting research fellow at the institute. The institute, based in Thiensville, is a non-profit think tank usually associated with conservative stances, and its study on felony sentencing in Milwaukee County had some judges skeptical of the eventual conclusions even before the report was prepared. "Mr. Mitchell rightly points out that his charts cannot be used to assess the sentencing practices of individual judges," said Circuit Judge Elsa C. Lamelas, who is assigned to one of the county's 10 felony courts. "There are so many significant variables at sentencing, such as the kinds of cases before a particular judge, the availability and credibility of the witnesses, the charging philosophies of prosecutors and the criminal histories of defendants." Circuit Judge Jeffrey A. Kremers, presiding felony judge, was particularly troubled by the report. "I can't argue that the public needs to be educated about what is going on in the courts," Kremers said. "But with all due respect to Mr. Mitchell, I get the feeling that after all his research, he doesn't understand the courts any better than the average citizen." District Attorney E. Michael McCann, too, agreed with some of the findings but took sharp exception to others, particularly the conclusion that "plea bargaining in Milwaukee County appears to cut substantially the exposure of criminals to punishment." The researchers found that in plea bargains where charges were reduced or dismissed, the average actual sentence was 11.2 years, compared with an initial maximum possible sentence averaging 43.7 years. McCann said while the report emphasized the reduced prison exposure in plea-bargained cases, it failed to point out that the vast majority of cases studied did not involve plea bargains. McCann also noted that charges are often dismissed because of evidence uncovered after defendants are first charged. McCann and judges, meanwhile, agreed that the report highlighted a problem by noting of the growth in early paroles and decrease in the percentage of prison sentences being served. Early paroles climbed from 60% in 1990 to 84% in 1995, according to the report. The average percentage of sentence served in prison declined 26% in the same period, the report says. "At sentencing, one of the uncertainties is the length of time a defendant will actually serve in prison," Lamelas said. "Under truth in sentencing, everyone -- the defendant, the lawyers, the judge and the community -- will know just how much time a defendant will be imprisoned before release. Said Circuit Judge Diane S. Sykes: "This study is important in showing the need for truth in sentencing. I think truth in sentencing will go a long way in correcting problems cited by this study." The report also concludes: The average new prison sentence grew 31% during the period when time served dropped 26%. Concurrent sentencing reduced maximum sentence exposure by 50%. The discretion allowed to circuit court judges makes for disparate sentencing that can vary widely at times between judges assigned similar cases. Nine of 16 drug dealers in the study received sentences of three years or less. "If you look at the drug court sentences compared with the guidelines, I think our sentences are longer than recommended," said Kremers, who is assigned to one of the county's two drug courts. "There are also cases where I think prison might be appropriate but where I don't think a lengthy prison sentence is appropriate." Lamelas said the report does not address an often-overlooked factor. "Sooner or later, almost all offenders are returned to the community," she said. "We know little about what makes for effective supervision."