When determining sentencing, the seriousness of an offense and the criminal history of the person with justice involvement are both considered. As decision makers, we are in a unique position to take actions that lead to improved outcomes for individuals and communities. Utilizing evidence-based practices and tools, criminal justice professionals can comply with statutory sentencing requirements, balance accountability and community safety, and focus on individualized long-term behavioral change.

Sentencing Practices: EBP Resources

Protecting the community, restoring crime victims (where possible), holding people accountable to laws, and promoting positive behavior change requires a comprehensive, evidence-based practice approach.

Sentencing decisions, from duration to location (community vs. incarceration), have a direct impact on outcomes. Using evidence-based assessments, strategies, and resources, justice professionals are better able to implement decisions that produce measurable, long-lasting, positive outcomes.

Research indicates people are more likely to accept a judicial outcome (even if they disagree with it) if they perceive they were treated fairly—a concept known as procedural justice. Giving people a voice in the process, and demonstrating that decision makers are neutral and transparent, will result in a more positive view of authority. When people feel heard and have a more positive view of authority, they are more likely to comply with sentencing decisions.

With the proper tools and training, everyone can practice procedural justice, regardless of their role in the criminal justice system.

Several EBP Briefs focus on sentencing practices:

• Assessments
• Procedural Justice
• Impactful Court Decisions
• Unintentionally Doing Harm
• Length of Community Supervision

PPCJI is developing a pre-sentence investigation (PSI) template that will complement and include the core concepts outlined in the EBP Briefs shared in this email.

Honorable Judge Charles Ehrlich, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas

Pro Tip:

As a Criminal Court Judge for over 12 years, I understand the value of having as much

information as possible to ensure an appropriate sentence is imposed. In addition to the specific facts of the current case, I review the individual’s prior record, including:

• types of cases
• age of convictions
• history while on probation

These details aid my ability to sentence a person in a manner that balances public safety while promoting rehabilitation designed to reduce recidivism. Sentencing guidelines provide a starting point; however, prior justice involvement, information gleaned from pre-sentence reports, evaluations, and validated assessments provide the data and details that drive my sentencing decision.

Through a lens of evidence-based practice interventions, shown to reduce the likelihood of rearrest, I explore the following questions:

• What is the appropriate length of community supervision based on risk?
• What conditions are necessary and least restrictive to promote the person’s rehabilitation and to address criminogenic needs?
• Does the person need to reorient their thinking through cognitive behavioral therapy to stop their criminal conduct?
• Does the person need drug treatment and what is the appropriate level of care?
• Does a person with mental health issues need special supervision including medication management?
• Would job training or education be beneficial?
• What needs or barriers can be addressed while the person is incarcerated or during the reentry process?

A judge’s involvement in a case should not end at sentencing. I make every attempt to stay involved with my probation department. When appropriate and if public safety won’t be jeopardized, I encourage officers to be flexible, adjust schedules to allow the person to not miss work, and to look at alternatives to jail, such as house arrest, to minimize impact on family, employment, or other stabilizing factors. I also believe the value of officers using a case management system to aid in determining the most effective supervision plan for the person.

Finally, I believe in bringing people back for a status listing in 60 days to see how their supervision is going and to identify what adjustments, if any, are necessary.

The first year on parole and probation is crucial to a person’s success. Positive judicial involvement, where the judge is encouraging and showing an interest in the person moving forward in their life, can and does help reduce recidivism.

Next Month:  Stage Three of Implementation 

Positive change is possible for everyone in Pennsylvania. We look forward to continuing to enhance your EBP knowledge and invite you to submit education/resource requests to askppcji@gmail.com.