Opinion ID: 1997568
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Good Time After the Truth in Sentencing Act of 1989

Text: When the General Assembly enacted the Truth in Sentencing Act, one of its stated purposes was to assure the public ... that the sentence imposed by the Court will be served by the defendant. [42] Another 23-purpose was to require accountability of the Court in fashioning a sentence. [43] In fulfillment of these objectives, the Act, therefore, abolished parole. Notwithstanding the stated goal of predictable sentences, the Act retained a modified good time system, which continues to allow prison officials to release an inmate from jail prior to serving the full sentence imposed by the court. [44] Although the Act significantly reduced the rates at which an inmate can earn good time credits, it is still possible for an inmate who earns all the good time credits available under a sentence imposed after the Act to reduce his term of incarceration by 90 days per year or by almost 25%. [45] The intended effect of good time credits on a sentence imposed after the Act is not entirely clear, however, because, although the Act explicitly abolished parole, it did not explicitly abolish conditional release, which is a form of parole. The parties, however, agree that if Andrews had been serving only a sentence imposed after the Act, then his accumulated good time credits would have permitted his conditional release from imprisonment under 11 Del.C. § 4348, thus permitting him to serve out some of his remaining time as if he was on parole. Accordingly, the parties agree that even under a sentence imposed after the Act, the good time credits earned do not lessen the overall sentence imposed by the court, but merely permit the substitution of a different form of discipline for prison discipline. [46]