Corrections_Today_November_December_2023_Vol.85_No.6

Policies Editor’s Note: The following public correctional policies printed below were reviewed by the Resolutions and Policies Committee, amended and then approved for adoption by the ACA Board of Governors and Delegate Assembly at the 2023 153 rd ACA Congress of Correction in Philadelphia, PA.

PUBLIC CORRECTIONAL POLICY ON OPPOSING LIFE SENTENCES WITHOUT POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE FOR JUVENILES 2023-8 Introduction: Juveniles convicted of serious and/or violent crimes should be held accountable in a way that protects public safety, reflects human rights, val ues, and moral beliefs. Policy Statement: A. There are substantial and fundamental differences between juveniles and adults, particularly with regard to cognitive devel opment and emotional maturity. B. Juveniles have much greater potential for rehabilitation and should be provided every opportunity to heal and rehabilitate. C. The U.S. Supreme Court has established that children are constitutionally different from adults for sentencing purposes. D. The United States Supreme Court ruled it is unconstitutional to impose an automatic or mandatory sentence of life without parole upon an individual for a crime com mitted under the age of 18. E. The American Correctional Association (ACA) opposes the sentencing to life with out the possibility of parole for individuals under the age of 18. F. ACA supports sentencing policies that

G. Victims and survivors of crimes commit ted by juveniles should be provided with supportive services and the restorative justice necessary to promote recovery. This Public Correctional Policy was unanimously rati fied by the American Correctional Association Delegate Assembly at the 153 rd Congress of Correction in Philadel phia, PA on August 13, 2023. PUBLIC CORRECTIONAL POLICY ON SENTENCING 1994-1 Introduction: Changes in U.S. sentencing policies have been a major cause of an unprecedented increase in the prison population. The sentencing process should attempt to control crime as much as possible, in the least restrictive environment consistent with public safety, and at the lowest cost to taxpayers. There should be a balanced consideration of all sentencing objectives. Sentencing policy today takes many forms. In some venues, legislatures have taken author ity over that policy, leaving little discretion in sentencing individual offenders to the judiciary. Under these circumstances, “sentencing” discre tion is shifted to the prosecutors and takes the form of plea and charge bargaining. In others, judges and parole boards retain broad discretion on a case-by-case basis. In still others, sentencing com missions have defined how offenders are punished. Sentencing policy directly affects the correctional environment, and to the extent sentencing policy fails in proportionality, fairness, and rationality, then correctional practice and institutional man agement is negatively affected. As implementers of sentencing policies, cor rections professionals have a unique vantage point from which to provide input on their effectiveness and consequences. If the corrections professional does not voice their collective experience on this

hold juveniles accountable in an age appropriate manner while focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Corrections Today November/December 2023 — 35