DOI: 10.3886/icpsr02891
title: Evaluation of North Carolina's 1994 Structured Sentencing Law, 1992-1998
title: Archival Version

description: Effective October 1, 1994, the state of North Carolina
 implemented a new structured sentencing law that applied to all felony
 and misdemeanor crimes (except for driving while impaired) committed
 on or after October 1, 1994. Under the new structured sentencing law
 parole was eliminated, and a sentencing commission developed
 recommended ranges of punishment for offense and offender categories,
 set priorities for the use of correctional resources, and developed a
 model to estimate correctional populations. This study sought to
 investigate sentencing reforms by looking at the effects of structured
 sentencing on multiple aspects of the adjudication process in North
 Carolina. A further objective was to determine whether there were
 differences in the commission of institutional infractions between
 inmates sentenced to North Carolina prisons under the pre-structured
 versus structured sentencing laws. Researchers hoped that the results
 of this study may help North Carolina and jurisdictions around the
 country (1) anticipate the likely effects of structured sentencing
 laws, (2) design new laws that might better achieve the jurisdictions'
 goals, and (3) improve the potential of sentencing legislation in
 order to enhance public safety in an effective and equitable
 way. Administrative records data were collected from two
 sources. First, in order to examine the effects of structured
 sentencing on the adjudication process in North Carolina, criminal
 case data were obtained from the North Carolina Administrative Office
 of the Courts (Parts 1 and 2). The pre-structured sentencing and
 structured sentencing samples were selected at the case level, and
 each record in Parts 1 and 2 represents a charged offense processed in
 either the North Carolina Superior or District Court. Second, inmate
 records data were collected from administrative records provided by
 the North Carolina Department of Correction (Part 3). These data were
 used to compare the involvement in infractions of inmates sentenced
 under both pre-structured and structured sentencing. The data for Part
 3 focused on inmates entering the prison system between June 1, 1995,
 and January 31, 1998. Variables for Parts 1 and 2 include type of
 charge, charged offense date, method of disposition (e.g., dismissal,
 withdrawal, jury trial), defendant's plea, verdict for the offense,
 and whether the offense was processed through the North Carolina
 Superior or District Court. Structured sentencing offense class and
 modified Uniform Crime Reporting code for both charged and convicted
 offenses are presented for Parts 1 and 2. There are also county,
 prosecutorial district, and defendant episode identifiers in both
 parts. Variables related to defendant episodes include types of
 offenses within episode, total number of charges and convictions,
 whether all charges were dismissed, whether any felony charge resulted
 in a jury trial, and the adjudication time for all charges. Demographic
 variables for Parts 1 and 2 include the defendant's age, race, and
 gender. Part 3 variables include the date of prison admission,
 sentence type, number of prior incarcerations, number of years served
 during prior incarcerations, maximum sentence length for current
 incarceration, jail credit in years, count of all infractions during
 current and prior incarcerations, reason for incarceration, infraction
 rate, the risk for alcohol and drug dependency based on alcohol and
 chemical dependency screening scores, and the number of assault,
 drug/alcohol, profanity/disobedience, work absence, and money/property
 infractions during an inmate's current incarceration. Demographic
 variables for Part 3 include race, gender, and age at the time of each
inmate's prison admission.
description: Over the past three decades, many major reforms
 have occurred in the United States concerning adjudication and
 sentencing policies and practices. While there have been various
 studies investigating the impacts of sentencing reform, the focus of
 these studies has been largely limited to topics such as compliance
 with changes, sentencing disparity, sentencing patterns, and the
 impacts on correctional populations. Research addressing the effects
 of sentencing reform on the criminal justice process itself was
 lacking. Effective October 1, 1994, the state of North Carolina
 implemented a new structured sentencing law that applied to all felony
 and misdemeanor crimes (except for driving while impaired) committed
 on or after October 1, 1994. The purposes of the new structured
 sentencing law were (1) to increase the effectiveness of the
 sanctioning process, (2) to improve consistency and fairness for
 offenders, (3) to promote truth in sentencing, and (4) to make more
 efficient use of the state's prosecution, adjudication, and
 correctional resources. Under the new structured sentencing law parole
 was eliminated, and a sentencing commission developed recommended
 ranges of punishment for offense and offender categories, set
 priorities for the use of correctional resources, and developed a
 model to estimate correctional populations. At the time of data
 collection for this study, the sentencing commission had tracked
 sentences and other aspects of structured sentencing, but had limited
 resources to study the effects of the new law on the criminal justice
 system. This study sought to investigate sentencing reforms by looking
 at the effects of structured sentencing on multiple aspects of the
 adjudication process in North Carolina. A further objective was to
 determine whether there were differences in the commission of
 institutional infractions between inmates sentenced to North Carolina
 prisons under the pre-structured versus structured sentencing
 laws. Researchers hoped that the results of this study may to help
 North Carolina and jurisdictions around the country (a) anticipate the
 likely effects of structured sentencing laws, (b) design new laws that
 might better achieve their individual intended goals, and (c)
 ultimately improve the potential of sentencing legislation in order to
enhance public safety in an effective and equitable way.
description: Administrative records data were collected from
 two sources. First, pre-structured (Part 1) and structured (Part 2)
 samples were selected at the case level from criminal case data
 obtained from the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts.
 The pre-structured sample represents cases during the time prior to
 structured sentencing going into effect. The structured sample was
 used directly in examining the effects structured sentencing had on
 the adjudication process in North Carolina. Each record in Parts 1 and
 2 represents a charged offense processed in either the North Carolina
 Superior or District Court. Because some offenses were processed at
 both the district and superior court levels, an individual offense
 could be represented by more than one record. To obtain an
 unduplicated count of offenses, researchers distinguished between
 "interim" and "noninterim" records for every offense. Interim records
 were defined as offense records that did not include a final
 disposition. For a superior court offense record, INTERIM=1 if the
 offense was remanded to district court or withdrawn from superior
 court. For a district court offense record, INTERIM=1 if the offense
 was bound or appealed to superior court (and was not remanded back to
 district court or withdrawn from superior court). Each record in Parts
 1 and 2 carries a defendant identifier (DEFENDID) and a defendant
 episode identifier (DEFEPIID), which link together all charged offense
 records for a defendant or a defendant episode. Researchers conducted
 all of their analyses at this defendant episode level. To create
 defendant episodes, researchers linked together all charges for a
 defendant within a prosecutorial district, regardless of the case with
 which it was associated, for which the adjudication interval (dates
 from initial charged offense to disposition) overlapped. Under this
 scheme, some defendants had more than one defendant episode. If, for
 example, a defendant had multiple offenses charged and disposed within
 a six-week interval, and then had another group of offenses charged
 two months later, researchers considered each set of offenses as a
 separate defendant episode and analytic unit. The second source of
 administrative records data was the North Carolina Department of
 Correction inmate records (Part 3). These data were used to compare
 the involvement in infractions of inmates sentenced under both
 pre-structured and structured sentencing. These data focused on
 inmates entering the prison system between June 1, 1995, and January
 31, 1998. Data for Part 3 include only those infractions that resulted
 in a conviction, so infractions not formally recognized and
 adjudicated by prison authorities were excluded from analyses. Inmates
 serving mixed sentences, life sentences and those incarcerated for
drinking while intoxicated (DWI) were also excluded.
description: Variables for Parts 1 and 2 include type of charge,
 charged offense date, method of disposition (e.g., dismissal,
 withdrawal, jury trial), defendant's plea, verdict for the offense,
 and whether the offense was processed through the North Carolina
 Superior or District Court. Structured sentencing offense class and
 modified Uniform Crime Reporting code for both charged and convicted
 offenses are presented for Parts 1 and 2. There are also county,
 prosecutorial district, and defendant episode identifiers in both
 parts. Variables related to defendant episodes include types of
 offenses within episode, total number of charges and convictions,
 whether all charges were dismissed, whether any felony charge resulted
 in a jury trial, and the adjudication time for all charges. Demographic
 variables for Parts 1 and 2 include the defendant's age, race, and
 gender. Part 3 variables include the date of prison admission,
 sentence type, number of prior incarcerations, number of years served
 during prior incarcerations, maximum sentence length for current
 incarceration, jail credit in years, count of all infractions during
 current and prior incarcerations, reason for incarceration, infraction
 rate, the risk for alcohol and drug dependency based on alcohol and
 chemical dependency screening scores, and the number of assault,
 drug/alcohol, profanity/disobedience, work absence, and money/property
 infractions during an inmate's current incarceration. Demographic
 variables for Part 3 include race, gender, and age at the time of each
inmate's prison admission.
description: Response Rates: Not applicable
description: Presence of Common Scales: None
description: The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) sampled
 their criminal case database and extracted cases based on one
 criterion, which required that each case have at least one criminal
 offense (certain traffic offenses, probation violations, and
 infractions were excluded) disposed during January-June 1994 and
 January-June 1996. Charged offense and disposition dates for offense
 records were later constrained to within the time period from October
 1, 1992, through September 30, 1994, for Part 1 and from October 1,
 1994, through September 30, 1996, for Part 2. For Part 3, inmates
 entering the prison system (whether a minimum or maximum security
 institution) between June 1, 1995, and January 31, 1998, were
 identified from the North Carolina Department of Correction inmate
records.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts Pre-Structured Sentencing Data
DS2: North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts Structured Sentencing Data
DS3: North Carolina Department of Correction Data
description: Part 1: Criminal offenders sentenced under North
 Carolina's pre-structured sentencing law. Part 2: Criminal offenders
 sentenced under North Carolina's structured sentencing law. Part 3:
 Inmates entering North Carolina's prison system between June 1, 1995,
 and January 31, 1998, sentenced under both pre-structured and
structured sentencing laws.