REVAMP IN CRIME SENTENCING URGED

Truth-in-sentencing prompts new categories

Madison - Serious crime in Wisconsin - everything from murder to bomb
scares - would be reclassified under nine categories with new sentences
under recommendations a special committee was poised to make today to the
Legislature.

For nearly a year, the Criminal Penalties Study Committee has been reviewing
the state criminal code, felony by felony, in an effort to make the
punishment fit the crime under Wisconsin's new truth-in-sentencing law.

It's the first comprehensive review of the criminal code in about 50 years.

The 18-member panel is expected to take a final vote today on its
recommendations and send them to the governor and Legislature by Aug. 31.

The committee was created after the Legislature last year passed the
truth-in-sentencing law, which eliminates parole and makes criminals serve
their entire prison terms behind bars.

The law, which takes effect Dec. 31, calls for a study of the criminal code
in an attempt to restore some balance after years of anti-crime measures,
creating new crimes and enhancing penalties on existing offenses.

Among the recommendations outlined Thursday by the chairman, Eau Claire
County Circuit Judge Thomas Barland, was a new classification system for
serious crimes.

"One of our charges was to bring more rationality to the classification of
crimes, so that like crimes with similar consequences are classified alike,"
Barland said.

The criminal code now has six classes of felonies. Class A, the most
serious, includes homicide as well as other offenses, such as taking a
hostage, and provides for a sentence of life in prison.

The remaining existing categories, some offenses they include and maximum
prison terms are:

Class B - armed robbery, first-degree sexual assault and kidnapping, 40
years; Class BC - second-degree sexual assault, incest with a child, 20
years; Class C - robbery, burglary, first-degree reckless injury, 10 years;
Class D - battery, car theft, injury by intoxicated use of a vehicle, five
years; and Class E - second-degree reckless injury, bomb scares, two years.

People convicted of these crimes before Dec. 31 are eligible for parole
after serving only a quarter of their sentence and are automatically
released after serving two-thirds of their sentence.

Once the law kicks in, however, judges would set a prison term that
offenders must serve, plus a period of extended supervision by the state
once they are released from prison.

The committee is expected to recommend nine classes of felonies:

Class A: A maximum sentence of life in prison, the same as the current law.
Class B: A maximum prison term of 40 years, plus as many as 20 years of
extended supervision. Someone convicted of first-degree sexual assault or
armed robbery, for example, could get a maximum 60-year sentence: 40 years
in prison and 20 years under state supervision. Class C: 25 years in prison
and 15 years under extended supervision. Class D: 15 years in prison and 10
years under supervision. Class E: 10 years in prison and five years'
supervision. Class F: 71/2 years in prison and five years' supervision.
Class G: Five years in prison and five years of supervision. Class H: Three
years in prison and three years' supervision. Class I: 18 months in prison
and two years' supervision.

Under the soon-to-expire system, judges would add years to a prison
sentence, knowing that the offender would be released early, especially
given Wisconsin's severely crowded prison system.

With truth in sentencing, judges no longer have to pad sentences, because
inmates can't get out early on parole. Whether they will adjust their
sentences accordingly, however, has been one of the most troubling questions
of the truth-in-sentencing debate.

Judges run the risk of appearing soft on crime if they adjust their
sentences, and Barland said that concern has been expressed by many
colleagues on the bench.

He said it's possible judges won't adjust the sentences they hand down,
which means the inmate population could grow at an even faster rate.

"That could happen, and there's two things that have to be done to reduce
the likelihood of that happening," Barland said.

"One is enhancing probation, so it is a more attractive choice to the
sentencing judge on these shorter sentences."

Among the committee's recommendations is improving probation as an option
for judges by increasing the number of agents, requiring more-intense
supervision of offenders on probation, and providing more temporary cell
space.

"The second is educating judges and the public, so that the public
understands the problem and not place unrealistic pressure upon the judge to
sentence for longer periods of time," Barland said.