# THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/court_rules%3Amd%3A48df787bd279229f ## Record - **Collection:** Court rules - **Document type:** Court rule ## Text THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE Hon. ALAN M. WILNER, Chair SANDRA F. HAINES, Reporter COLBY L. SCHMIDT, Deputy Reporter HEATHER COBUN, Assistant Reporter MEREDITH A. DRUMMOND, Assistant Reporter Judiciary A-POD 580 Taylor Avenue Annapolis, Maryland 21401 (410) 260-3630 FAX: (410) 260-3631 July 20, 2021 The Honorable Mary Ellen Barbera, Chief Judge The Honorable Robert N. McDonald The Honorable Shirley M. Watts The Honorable Michele D. Hotten The Honorable Joseph M. Getty The Honorable Brynja M. Booth The Honorable Jonathan Biran, Judges Your Honors: The Rules Committee submits this, its Third Supplement to its Two Hundred and Seventh Report. Item One in that Report consisted of proposed amendments to Rule 4-345 intended to broaden the ability of the Circuit Courts to modify criminal sentences imposed by them on two categories of inmates serving a sentence of 15 years or more: (1) inmates who committed the crime(s) prior to reaching the age of 25 and have served the greater of 15 years or 60 percent of the sentence, and (2) inmates who have served at least 15 years and have reached the age of 60. For those inmates, the five-year limitation on the exercise of the court’s revisory power and the procedural requirement that the inmate have filed a motion to revise the sentence within 90 days after the imposition of the sentence (Rule 4-345 (e)) would not apply and would not bar relief. The Court held an open hearing on the 207th Report on June 14, 2021, and, after listening to presentations and considerable discussion among the members of the Court, remanded Item 1 to the Committee for the purpose of providing additional information and clarification in light of questions and concerns raised by members of the Court. Much of the discussion regarding Item 1 focused on the differences between the Committee’s proposals and the provisions in Senate Bill 494, which was enacted over the Governor’s veto during the 2021 Session of the General Assembly. Several judges wanted a clearer explanation of why the Committee chose to depart from some of the statutory provisions and how the Rule and the statute could be reconciled. Other judges wanted further information regarding what other States had done with respect to revising sentences imposed on youthful offenders and elderly prisoners and a fuller explanation of the scientific and statistical conclusions that served as the basis for the proposed amendments. Questions were raised regarding the impact of the provisions dealing with hearings on hearing provisions in Rules governing other requests for the modification of criminal sentences. The purpose of this Supplement is to address those questions and concerns. Youthful Offenders The basis for the Committee’s proposals with respect to youthful offenders was the growing empirical evidence, documented both statistically and in medical, psychological, and criminological journals and accepted by the United States Supreme Court, that (1) younger people have “a lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility leading to recklessness, impulsivity, and heedless risk-taking” and “lack the ability to extricate themselves from horrific, crime-producing settings” (Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 471 (2012)) and (2) that is due, at least in part, to the fact that the parts of the human brain that can ameliorate those attributes are not fully developed during the teenage years and do not become fully developed until an individual is into his or her 20’s. Although there appears to remain some debate about what to call this transitional period beyond the age of 18 – young adulthood, emerging adulthood, late adolescence – the literature and, more important perhaps, actual arrest data, clearly support the view stated in Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Young Adults in the Juvenile and Adult Criminal Justice Systems, Council of State Governments Justice Center (2015) at 2, that: Contrary to conventional belief, age 18 is not a fixed point when adolescents become fully mature adults. Rather, young adulthood is a transitional period that can range from 18 to 24 and even beyond, during which significant brain development is still occurring and decision-making abilities are not fully mature. During this period of substantial growth and change, young adults exhibit clear developmental differences from both youth and older adults. 1 See also Selen Siringil Perker and Lael Chester, Emerging Adults: A Distinct Population that Calls for an Age-appropriate Approach by the Justice System, at p. 3 (June 2017); Jeffrey J. 1 The article cites as authority for that statement Ashley R. Smith, Jason Chein, and Laurence Steinberg, “Peers Increase Adolescent Risk Taking Even When the Probabilities of Negative Outcomes are Known,” Developmental Psychology, 50, no. 5, pp. 1564-1568 (May 2014); Kathryn Monahan, Laurence Steinberg, Elizabeth Cauffman, and Edward Mulvey, “Psychosocial Immaturity from Adolescence to Early Adulthood: Distinguishing Between AdolescenceLimited and Persistent Antisocial Behavior,” Development and Psychopathology, 25, n. 4, pp. 1093-1105 (November 2013); Elizabeth Shulman, Kathryn Paige Harden, Jason Chein, and Laurence Steinberg, “The Development of Impulse Control and Sensation-Seeking In Adolescence: Independent or Interdependent Processes?” Journal of Research on Adolescence, 26, n. 1 (October 2014); and Laurence Steinberg, “Should the Science of Adolescent Brain Development Inform Public Policy?” 50 Ct. Rev. 70 (2014). Arnett, Emerging Adulthood: A Theory of Development from the Late Teens through the Twenties, American Psychologist (May 2000); Elizabeth S. Scott, Richard J. Bonnie, and Laurence Steinberg, Young Adulthood as a Transitional Legal Category: Science, Social Change, and Justice Policy, 85 Fordham L. Rev. 641, 642 (2016); Tirza A. Mullin, Eighteen Is Not a Magic Number; Why the Eighth Amendment Requires Protection for Youth Aged Eighteen to Twenty-Five, 53 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 807 (2020); Rolf Loeber and David Farrington, Study Group on the Transitions Between Juvenile Delinquency and Adult Crime, Research Report submitted to U.S. Department of Justice (2013); Laurence Steinberg, Elizabeth Cauffman, and Kathryn V. Monahan, Psychosocial Maturity and Desistance from Crime in a Sample of Serious Juvenile Offenders, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, March 2015. The conclusions reached in those articles are documented empirically by actual arrest records. Attached to this Supplement as Appendix A is a December 2017 Report by the United States Sentencing Commission, The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders, which illuminates several facts in support of the Committee’s recommendations. Figure 1, on page 11, is a bar graph that measures, by age, all arrests in the United States in 2016. It shows a high rate of arrests of people throughout their twenties that begins to drop off significantly thereafter. The Committee acknowledges, of course, that all youngsters go through that brain developmental process and that only a very small percentage of them allow their impulses to lead them into criminal behavior. The Committee does not believe that the lack of a fully mature frontal cortex is the cause of criminal behavior but does accept the conclusions cited that it can explain some of the bad choices youngsters can make that cause harm to others and get themselves in trouble. The paper published by the Justice Center of the Council of State Governments (Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Young Adults in the Juvenile and Adult Criminal Justice Systems, supra, at 3), recognizes that, for both youth and adults, criminal thinking and antisocial tendencies are often the primary causes of criminal behavior, but that “young adults’ immaturity and susceptibility to peer influences makes them even more prone to engage in this type of behavior.” The findings and conclusions in these publications support the Committee’s choice of 25, rather than 18, as the appropriate qualifying age. It was not just an arbitrary pick. Senate Bill 494 When developing its proposals, with the assistance of the Attorney General’s Office and the Public Defender’s Office, the Committee was aware that SB 494 was then pending in the State Senate with an uncertain future. The Committee also was aware of this Court’s Opinion in Carter, Bowie, McCullough v. State, 461 Md. 295 (2018) in which, after discussing Miller and Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), regarding those attributes of the “emerging adult,” the Court noted that, although the State is not required to “guarantee eventual freedom” to youthful offenders who commit horrifying crimes and may turn out to be irredeemable, it must give juvenile offenders “some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” Id. at 311, quoting from Graham. Although that statement was in the context of an initial sentence, the Committee suggests, as a policy matter, that it is relevant to the opportunity for subsequent sentence review as well. This Court has recognized on several occasions the generally accepted principle that one of the objectives of sentencing is rehabilitation (Jackson v. State, 364 Md. 192, 199 (2001) and cases cited therein), which is far more ascertainable when considering a revision of the sentence under Rule 4-345 than when initially imposing it, at which point possible rehabilitation is usually speculative at best. The fate of SB 494 was not determined until after the Criminal Rules Subcommittee had approved proposed amendments to the Rule. The subcommittee saw a need to address not just the juvenile offender but the issue of the ageing prisoner as well, which the statute does not address. That was based on data showing that many of those prisoners, who had served substantial periods of long sentences, were no longer a danger to public safety and ought to have the opportunity to seek release, free from the five-year and 90-day impediments, which they could do nothing about. See infra. The enactment of SB 494 did not change the Committee’s views. As enacted, it provided no prospect of relief to the ageing prisoner and provided no relief to any youngster sentenced on or after October 1, 2021. The Committee believed that the Court has the authority to amend its own Rule to provide a broader opportunity for relief and that there was a solid basis for doing so. In light of the Court’s comments, the Committee has revised the proposed amendments to gratify completely the text of the statute by incorporating it by reference into the Rule as a new subsection (f)(3). That would give inmates who committed their crime before reaching 18 and were sentenced before October 1, 2021 the opportunity to seek relief under the statute as it is written. Subsection (f)(4) would afford the prospect of relief to those who satisfy the criteria of that subsection but who are excluded from the statute or who choose not to file under the statute. 2 The argument has been made that there is an indirect conflict based on the assumption that, by limiting the statute as it did, the Legislature did not want anyone else to be eligible for sentence modification. Even if that were so, the Legislature has no Constitutional authority to preclude the Court from amending its own Rule to limit impediments the Court itself imposed, as a matter of Judicial policy and administration. The Court asked as well about the service requirements of 15 years and 60 percent and the qualifying age of 60 years. Any number would be arbitrary in a sense, but, using the charts prepared by the Attorney General’s Office, those numbers avoided some anomalous “cliffs,” 2 The Committee did add two provisions to a proceeding under the statute that are not expressly provided for in the statute. One, which would be required under the Rule on motions, is to require that the inmate’s motion be served on the State’s Attorney. The other is to require the clerk to forward a copy of the motion to the local county or district office of the Public Defender. That is consistent with the practice under Rule 4-705 (b), dealing with motions for DNA testing. It is likely that most of the petitioning inmates will be indigent. seemed best to match what the Committee thought was fair, and provided the best opportunity for a successful life upon release. Hearing Requirements There are several Rules dealing with motions for post-conviction relief. Rule 4-331 permits motions for a new trial based on some defect in the trial or on newly discovered evidence. Section (f) of that Rule permits a hearing on such a motion and requires a hearing if the motion is based on newly discovered evidence, was timely filed, and a hearing was requested. Rule 4-709, which deals with motions for new trial based on DNA evidence, requires a hearing in some circumstances, precludes one in others, and makes a hearing discretionary in yet others. Rule 4-332, dealing with a writ of innocence, also involves a request for a new trial or a new sentence. It requires a hearing if the motion complies with the requirements of the Rule and a hearing was requested. Rule 4-406 requires a hearing on a petition for relief under the Post Conviction Procedure Act if there is a dispute of fact. Current Rule 4-345, dealing with the revisory power over sentences, precludes the court from modifying a sentence without a hearing in open court but precludes a hearing from taking place unless the required notices to victims were sent. SB 494 requires a hearing on a motion to reduce a sentence filed pursuant to the statute. As noted, the proposed amendments to Rule 4-345 would incorporate by reference the provisions of SB 494 into the Rule as a new subsection (f)(3). Accordingly, an inmate who files a motion for modification under the statute would be entitled to a hearing on that motion in conformance with the statute. If a petition is filed pursuant to proposed subsection (f)(4), the current provision of the Rule precluding the court from modifying, reducing, correcting, or vacating a sentence without a hearing would remain subject to two exceptions: the court must dismiss the petition without a hearing if it finds that the petitioner does not qualify as an eligible petitioner, and the court may deny the petition without a hearing if it finds that, during the preceding six years, a motion under subsection (f)(3) or a petition under subsection (f)(4) was denied after a hearing. That provision would not apply to any of the other Rules noted above. In order to preclude an inmate from bouncing back and forth with motions under the statute and then petitions under the Rule, the Committee further proposes permitting a motion to be denied without a hearing if a previous motion or petition was denied after a hearing within the preceding three years. Permitting that to occur would constitute a vexatious burden on both the court and on victims. The Ageing Population The latest data regarding inmate characteristics published by the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services (July 1, 2018) show that there were 902 prisoners over 60 years of age (4.8% of the total inmate population). The problems endemic to that population, in terms of general health, dementia, depression, geriatric incontinence, mobility, and safety, have been widely reported and are not seriously contested. See R. Aday, Aging Prisoners: Crisis in American Corrections (2003); Jalila Jefferson Bullock, A Little Child Shall Lead Them: Juvenile Justice, Aging Out, and the First Step Act, 87 Tenn. L. Rev. 569 (Spring 2020); Jalila Jefferson Bullock, Quelling the Silver Tsunami: Compassionate Release of Elderly Offenders, 79 Ohio St. L. J. 937 (2018). Given the two current impediments to the exercise of the court’s revisory power, the only current prospect of early release for those ageing prisoners, other than institutional credits for good behavior or special projects, is either parole or some form of compassionate leave, neither of which, so far, has assisted them. Exercising revisory power under Rule 4-345 is not intended as traditional compassionate leave or to relieve the Division of Correction from having to deal with the elderly prisoner, but rather to release prisoners who no longer are a danger to public safety, who no longer need to be in prison, and who can lead productive lives and become an asset rather than a detriment to society. The criteria set forth in the proposed amendments, some taken from SB 494, make that clear. The Ohio State Law Journal article notes the acceptance of the “aging out phenomenon” even by the Federal Bureau of Prisons: “By their own admission,” the article reports, “‘age is one of the biggest predictors of misconduct’ in prison and ‘inmates tend to “age out” of misconduct’ as they grow older. Older inmates ‘generally try to avoid conflict and “do their time” as quietly and easily as possible,’ and utilize ‘passive precautionary behaviors such as keeping more to oneself, avoiding certain areas of the prison, spending more time in one’s cell, and avoiding activities’ to remain free from danger.” Quelling the Silver Tsunami, supra, 79 Ohio St.L. J. at 974. One of the “Key Findings” of the United States Sentencing Commission in its 2017 Report (Appendix A) is that: Older offenders were substantially less likely than younger offenders to recidivate following release. Over an eight-year follow-up period, 13.4 percent of offenders age 65 or older at the time of release were rearrested compared to 67.5 percent of offenders younger than age 21 at the time of release. The pattern was consistent across age groupings, and recidivism measured by rearrest, reconviction, and incarceration declined as age increased. Id. at 3. The Commission added that “[a]ge exerted a strong influence on recidivism across all sentence length categories” and that “[o]lder offenders were less likely to recidivate after release than younger offenders who had served similar sentences, regardless of the length of sentence imposed.” Id. Data from the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in Quelling the Silver Tsunami, supra, at 974-75 showed that the recidivism rate for all offenders released between 2005 and 2010 was 77% (re-arrest within five years after release). Data from 2015 showed a re-arrest rate for inmates 50 and older released between 2006 and 2010 was 15% (re-arrest within three years after release), none of whom were 70 or older. The conclusion was that “[e]lderly offenders comprise an incredibly small percentage of recidivists.” It is important to note that the recidivism data in those studies was based on all prisoners released without regard to whether the release was a discretionary one, such as parole or judicial action, or simply from serving the sentence. The modifications proposed in the amendments to Rule 4-345 would be discretionary after consideration of the factors set forth in subsection (h)(4) and the evidence bearing on those factors. It is reasonable to expect that, in deciding whether to exercise their revisory power, judges will pay close attention to whether the petitioner is a good candidate for modification, and that the recidivism rates would likely be lower than the ones revealed in those studies. A Maryland experience is consistent with what all of that data shows. In 1980, the Court, in Stevenson v. State, 289 Md. 167 (1980), held invalid a jury instruction that had been almost routine in criminal cases. Thirty-two years later, in Unger v. State, 427 Md. 383 (2012), the Court held that the failure of defendants to object to that instruction in cases tried prior to 1981 did not constitute a waiver. As a result of that decision, 235 prisoners tried before 1981 became entitled to a new trial. Most of those prisoners had been convicted of very serious crimes, were serving life sentences, and were still incarcerated. Due to practical difficulties in being able to retry them, agreements were reached that resulted in the release of 188 of those inmates. Those released were between 51 and 85 years old. In a 2018 publication by the Justice Policy Institute, it was reported that there was a “a very low recidivism rate.” The Ungers, 5 years and Counting, Justice Policy Institute (2018) at 10, 11. Other States Finally, the Court inquired as to whether other States had adopted a similar opportunity for relief. The Public Defender has identified the District of Columbia, Delaware, and Florida, and a recommendation in the Model Penal Code. Their statutes are attached to this Supplement as Appendix B. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ ______________________ Alan M. Wilner Chair AMW:sdm Enclosures cc: Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE TITLE 4 – CRIMINAL CAUSES CHAPTER 300 – TRIAL AND SENTENCING AMEND Rule 4-345 by adding an exception to the five-year limitation on the court’s revisory power set forth in section (e); by transferring language from a Committee note following section (e) to new subsection (f)(2) and a cross reference following subsection (f)(2); by adding new subsection (f)(1) generally regarding modification in special circumstances; by adding a Committee note following subsection (f)(1); by adding new subsection (f)(3) governing modification of a sentence pursuant to a certain statute; by adding a Committee note following subsection (f)(3); by adding new subsection (f)(4) permitting a court, under certain circumstances, to modify a sentence by reason of length of confinement and age; by adding new subsection (g)(1), providing for where a motion or petition is to be filed; by adding new subsection (g)(2) requiring a certain attachment to a petition filed pursuant to subsection (f)(4); by adding new subsection (g)(3) requiring the clerk to forward a copy of a motion or petition by a self-represented individual filed under subsection (f)(3) or (f)(4) to be forwarded to the local Office of the Public Defender; by adding new subsection (g)(4) providing for service of a motion or 1 petition filed under the Rule and permitting the State’s Attorney to file a response within a certain time; by relettering current subsections (e)(2) and (e)(3) as subsections (g)(5) and (g)(6), respectively, and adding clarifying language to the subsections; by transferring the language of current section (f) to new subsections (h)(1)(A), (h)(2), and (h)(5) and adding clarifying language to the subsections; by adding new subsections (h)(1)(B) and (C) regarding the conduct of a hearing and the defendant’s presence at the hearing; by adding new subsection (h)(3) governing dismissals and denials of motions and petitions without a hearing; by adding a Committee note following subsection (h)(3); by adding new subsection (h)(4) listing factors for the court to consider in determining whether to grant relief under subsection (f)(4); and by making stylistic changes, as follows: Rule 4-345. (a) SENTENCING – REVISORY POWER OF COURT Illegal Sentence The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time. (b) Fraud, Mistake, or Irregularity The court has revisory power over a sentence in case of fraud, mistake, or irregularity. (c) Correction of Mistake in Announcement 2 The court may correct an evident mistake in the announcement of a sentence if the correction is made on the record before the defendant leaves the courtroom following the sentencing proceeding. Cross reference: See State v. Brown, 464 Md. 237 (2019), concerning an evident mistake in the announcement of a sentence. (d) Desertion and Non-Support Cases At any time before expiration of the sentence in a case involving desertion and non-support of spouse, children, or destitute parents, the court may modify, reduce, or vacate the sentence or place the defendant on probation under the terms and conditions the court imposes. (e) Modification Upon Motion – Generally (1) Generally Upon a motion filed within 90 days after imposition of a sentence (A)(1) in the District Court, if an appeal has not been perfected or has been dismissed, and (B)(2) in a circuit court, whether or not an appeal has been filed, the court has revisory power over the sentence except that it may not increase the sentence and, unless the court finds the special circumstances set forth in subsection (f)(2), (f)(3), or (f)(4) of the Rule, it may not revise the sentence after the expiration of five years from the date the sentence originally was imposed on the defendant and it may not increase the sentence. 3 Cross reference: Rule 7-112 (b). Committee note: The court at any time may commit a defendant who is found to have a drug or alcohol dependency to a treatment program in the Maryland Department of Health if the defendant voluntarily agrees to participate in the treatment, even if the defendant did not timely file a motion for modification or timely filed a motion for modification that was denied. See Code, Health--General Article, § 8-507. (f) Modification in Special Circumstances (1) Generally Failure to have filed a timely motion under section (e) of this Rule, or a previous grant or denial of a motion under that section, shall not bar relief under any of the special circumstances set forth in section (f) of this Rule. A modification of a sentence pursuant to section (f) may not include an increase in the length of the sentence. Committee Note: Although the court’s authority to revise a sentence on a motion filed pursuant to section (e) of this Rule is limited to five years from the date the sentence originally was imposed, no such limitation applies to the court’s revisory power under section (f). (2) Commitment for Drug or Alcohol Dependency Treatment The court at any time may commit a defendant who is found to have a drug or alcohol dependency to a treatment program in the Maryland Department of Health if the defendant voluntarily agrees to participate in the treatment. Committee note: In order to implement a commitment under subsection (f)(2), the court must suspend all of the sentence except the time served and place the defendant on supervised probation, a condition of which is the successful completion of the commitment. 4 Cross Reference: See Code, Health—General Article, § 8-507. (3) Modification Pursuant to Code, Criminal Procedure Article, §8-110 The court may modify a sentence imposed prior to October 1, 2021 on an individual who was convicted as an adult for an offense committed when the individual was a minor in accordance with the provisions of Code, Criminal Procedure Article, §8-110. Committee Note: Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 8-110 permits certain inmates to file a motion to reduce the duration of their sentence and provides certain requirements, conditions, and procedures for the processing of such a motion. The eligibility requirements for filing such a motion and some of the requirements, conditions, and procedures for the processing of that motion differ from those required for a petition filed under subsection (f)(4) of this Rule. It is the intent that a motion filed under subsection (f)(3) and a petition filed under subsection (f)(4) be treated as completely separate and independent proceedings, that a motion under subsection (f)(3) be dealt with as required by the statute, and that a petition filed under subsection (f)(4) be dealt with in accordance with that subsection and sections (g) and (h) of this Rule. (4) Modification by Reason of Length of Confinement and Age (A) Subsection (f)(4) of this Rule applies to a defendant who was sentenced to an aggregate unsuspended term of imprisonment of more than 15 years and (i) committed the last offense for which that sentence or any part of it was imposed before reaching the age of 25 and has served the greater of 15 years or sixty percent of that sentence, or (ii) has served at least 15 years of that sentence and has reached 60 years of age. For purposes of this subsection only, a life sentence or an 5 aggregate unsuspended sentence of more than 40 years shall be regarded as a sentence for 40 years. A defendant who meets the criteria of this paragraph is an eligible petitioner under subsection (f)(4). (B) Upon a petition filed by an eligible petitioner and compliance with the requirements of sections (g) and (h) of this Rule, the court may modify or reduce the sentence or place the defendant on probation under the terms and conditions the court imposes. (g) Procedure (1) Where Filed A motion or petition filed under this Rule shall be filed in the court that entered the sentence sought to be modified. If an aggregate sentence consists of two or more sentences imposed by different courts, and relief from the aggregate sentence is sought, a separate motion or petition shall be filed with each court. A court has revisory power under this Rule only with respect to a sentence that it imposed. (2) Attachment A petition seeking relief under subsection (f)(4) of this Rule shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the petitioner’s Institutional Adjustment Record. (3) Notice to Public Defender 6 If an individual seeking relief under subsection (f)(3) or (f)(4) of this Rule is self-represented, the clerk promptly shall forward a copy of the motion or petition to the local county or district Office of the Public Defender. (4) Service; Response A motion or petition filed under this Rule shall be served on the State’s Attorney for the county. The State’s Attorney may file a response within 30 days after service of the motion or petition. (2)(5) Notice to Victims Whether or not the State’s Attorney files a response, The the State's Attorney shall give notice of a motion or petition filed under this Rule to each victim and victim's representative who has filed a Crime Victim Notification Request form pursuant to Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 11-104 or who has submitted a written request to the State's Attorney to be notified of subsequent proceedings as provided under Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 11-503 that states (A) that a motion or petition to modify, vacate, or reduce a sentence has been filed; (B) that the motion or petition has been denied without a hearing or the date, time, and location of the hearing; and (C) if a hearing is to be held, that each victim or victim's representative may attend and testify. (3)(6) Inquiry by Court 7 Except as provided in subsection (h)(1), Before before considering a motion or petition under this Rule, the court shall inquire if a victim or victim's representative is present. If one is present, the court shall allow the victim or victim's representative to be heard as allowed by law. If a victim or victim's representative is not present and the case is one in which there was a victim, the court shall inquire of the State's Attorney on the record regarding any justification for the victim or victim's representative not being present, as set forth in Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 11-403 (e). If no justification is asserted or the court is not satisfied by an asserted justification, the court may postpone the hearing. (f)(h) Open Court Hearing (1) When required (A) The court may modify, reduce, correct, or vacate a sentence under this Rule only on the record in open court, and after hearing from the defendant movant or petitioner, the State State’s Attorney, and from each victim or victim's representative who requests present have been afforded an opportunity to be heard. The defendant may waive the right to be present at the hearing. (B) The hearing may be held in open court or remotely in accordance with procedures set forth in Rules 2-804 through 2806. 8 (C) A petitioner seeking relief under subsection (f)(4) of this Rule has a right to be present at the hearing. The petitioner may not waive that right unless (i) the petitioner is not capable of appearing and effectively participating at the hearing, or (ii) the court permits the waiver. An individual seeking relief under any other section of this Rule may waive the right to be present at the hearing. (2) Condition No hearing shall be held on a motion or petition to modify or reduce the sentence until the court determines that the notice requirements in subsection (e)(2)(g)(5) of this Rule have been satisfied. (3) When not required (A) A motion seeking relief under section (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e) of this Rule may be denied without a hearing. (B) The court shall deny a motion filed under subsection (f)(3) without a hearing if the court finds in a written order filed in the record that: (i) the motion was filed less than three years after the court denied or granted in part a motion or petition filed under subsection (f)(3) or (f)(4); or (ii) the court has previously denied or granted in part an aggregate total of three motions or petitions filed under subsection (f)(3) or (f)(4). 9 (C) The court shall dismiss a petition filed under subsection (f)(4) without a hearing if the court finds in a written order filed in the record that the petitioner does not qualify as an eligible petitioner. Committee note: The court may hold a hearing on a petition filed under subsection (f)(4) if there is insufficient information to allow the court to determine whether the petitioner qualifies as an eligible petitioner. (D) The court may deny a petition filed under subsection (f)(4) without a hearing if, during the preceding six years, a motion under subsection (f)(3) or a petition under subsection (f)(4) of this Rule was denied after a hearing. (4) Factors Relevant to Granting Relief on a Petition The court may grant relief under subsection (f)(4) if it determines that the individual is not a danger to the public and the interests of justice will be better served by a reduced or modified sentence. In determining whether to grant relief under subsection (f)(4) of this Rule, the court shall consider (A) the Institutional Adjustment Record of the petitioner filed with the petition; (B) the petitioner’s plans for housing, education, and employment if released; (C) whether, if the petitioner is released, there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will be a danger to a victim, another person, or the community; (D) if the petitioner is to be released on probation, any conditions recommended by the Division of Parole and Probation, 10 the State’s Attorney, or a victim; and (E) any other factor the court deems relevant. (5) Decision; Reasons If the court grants the motion or petition, the court ordinarily shall prepare and file or dictate into the record a statement setting forth the reasons on which the ruling is based. When the court rules on the merits of a petition filed pursuant to subsection (f)(4) of this Rule, it shall issue a written decision addressing the factors in subsection (h)(4) of this Rule. Cross reference: See Code, Criminal Law Article, § 5-609.1 regarding an application to modify a mandatory minimum sentence imposed for certain drug offenses prior to October 1, 2017, and for procedures relating thereto. Source: This Rule is derived in part from former Rule 774 and M.D.R. 774, and is in part new. 11 APPENDIX A The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders APPENDIX A U N I T E D S TAT E S S E N T E NC I NG COM M I S S ION United States Sentencing Commission One Columbus Circle, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 www.ussc.gov William H. Pryor, Jr. Acting Chair Rachel E. Barkow Commissioner Charles R. Breyer Commissioner Danny C. Reeves Commissioner Zachary C. Bolitho Ex Officio J. Patricia Wilson Smoot Ex Officio Kenneth P. Cohen Staff Director Glenn R. Schmitt Director Office of Research and Data December 2017 Kim Steven Hunt, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate, Office of Research and Data Billy Easley II, J.D., Legislative Affairs Specialist, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs TABLE OF CONTENTS i Part One Part Two Part Three Part Four EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DEFINING AND MEASURING RECIDIVISM CHARACTERISTICS OF RECIDIVISM STUDY GROUP 1 5 INTRODUCTION TO AGE AND RECIDIVISM AMONG FEDERAL OFFENDERS 9 The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders 13 Part Five Part Six Part Seven Part Eight RECIDIVISM RATES AMONG FEDERAL OFFENDERS BY AGE CONCLUSION ENDNOTES APPENDIX 21 29 33 37 The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders ii Part One Executive Summary Part One: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The United States Sentencing Commission1 began studying recidivism shortly after the enactment of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (“SRA”), and has issued several recent publications examining recidivism rates among federal offenders released in 2005. The Commission’s first report in this series, Recidivism Among Federal Offenders: A Comprehensive Overview (“Recidivism Overview Report”), was released in March 2016 and discussed this research project in greater detail. As noted in the previous reports in this series,2 recidivism information is central to three of the primary purposes of punishment described in the SRA—specific deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation—all of which focus on prevention of future crimes through correctional intervention. Information about recidivism is also relevant to the Commission’s obligation to formulate sentencing policy that “reflect[s], to the extent practicable, advancements in knowledge of human behavior as it relates to the sentencing process.”3 Considerations of recidivism by federal offenders were also central to the Commission’s initial work in developing the Guidelines Manual’s criminal history provisions4 as well as its ongoing work.5 2 The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders The Commission’s current recidivism research substantially expands on the scope of previous Commission recidivism projects. In addition to a different set of offenders—U.S. citizen federal offenders released in 2005—the current study group (25,431 offenders) is much larger than those in previous Commission studies. A larger study group allows for data analysis across many different subgroups of federal offenders, including those sentenced under different provisions in the guidelines. This report is the fourth in this series and focuses on the relationship between age at release and recidivism. This report examines the impact of the aging process on federal offender recidivism and, once age is accounted for, the impact of other offense and offender characteristics. Key Findings The key findings of the Commission’s study of federal offenders’ recidivism by age at release are that: • Older offenders were substantially less likely than younger offenders to recidivate following release. Over an eight-year follow-up period, 13.4 percent of offenders age 65 or older at the time of release were rearrested compared to 67.6 percent of offenders younger than age 21 at the time of release. The pattern was consistent across age groupings, and recidivism measured by rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration declined as age increased. • For federal offenders under age 30 at the time of release, over one-fourth (26.6%) who recidivated had assault as their most common new charge. By comparison, for offenders 60 years old or older at the time of release, almost one quarter (23.7%) who recidivated had a public order offense6 as their most serious new charge. • Age and criminal history exerted a strong influence on recidivism. For offenders in Criminal History Category I, the rearrest rate ranged from 53.0 percent for offenders younger than age 30 at the time of release to 11.3 percent for offenders age 60 or older. For offenders in Criminal History Category VI, the rearrest rate ranged from 89.7 percent for offenders younger than age 30 at the time of release to 37.7 percent for offenders age 60 or older. • Education level influenced recidivism across almost all categories. For example, among offenders under age 30 at the time of release, college graduates had a substantially lower rearrest rate (27.0%) than offenders who did not complete high school (74.4%). Similarly, among offenders age 60 or older at the time of release, college graduates had a somewhat lower rearrest rate (11.6%) than offenders who did not complete high school (17.2%). • Age exerted a strong influence on recidivism across all sentence length categories. Older offenders were less likely to recidivate after release than younger offenders who had served similar sentences, regardless of the length of sentence imposed. In addition, for younger offenders there was some association between the length of the original federal sentence and the rearrest rates, as younger offenders with sentences of up to six months generally had lower rearrest rates than younger offenders with longer sentences. However, among all offenders sentenced to one year or more of imprisonment, there was no clear association between the length of sentence and the rearrest rate. • For certain major offense types, the type of federal offense that offenders had committed also had an effect on recidivism across age groups. For example, firearms offenders had a substantially higher rearrest rate across all age categories than drug trafficking offenders, who in turn had a higher rearrest rate across all age categories than fraud offenders. For example, for offenders under age 30 at the time of release, the rearrest rates were 79.3 percent (firearms), 62.5 percent (drug trafficking), and 53.6 percent (fraud). Similarly, for offenders age 60 and older at the time of release, the rearrest rates were 30.2 percent (firearms), 17.5 percent (drug trafficking), and 12.5 percent (fraud). • At every age group, federal prisoners had a substantially lower recidivism rate than state prisoners who also were released in 2005 and tracked by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. For example, for offenders age 24 or younger at the time of release, 63.2 percent of federal prisoners were rearrested within five years compared to over four-fifths (84.1%) of state prisoners. Like federal prisoners, older state prisoners were less likely to recidivate than younger state prisoners. The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders 3 Part Two Defining and Measuring Recidivism Part Two: DEFINING AND MEASURING RECIDIVISM Defining and Measuring Recidivism Recidivism “refers to a person’s relapse into criminal behavior, often after the person receives sanctions or undergoes intervention for a previous crime.”7 Measuring recidivism informs decision making about issues such as pretrial detention, appropriate sentence type and length, prisoner classification, prison programming, and offender supervision in the community. It also allows policymakers to evaluate the performance of the criminal justice system as a whole.8 Recidivism is typically measured by criminal acts that resulted in the rearrest, reconviction, and/or reincarceration of the offender over a specified period of time. These are the three recidivism measures used in this report, but the report primarily relies on the first—rearrest—with additional data regarding reconviction and reincarceration reported in the Appendix. Providing data about multiple measures of recidivism allows users to select the performance measure best suited to their outcome of interest. Reincarceration classifies a person as a recidivist if a conviction or revocation resulted in a prison or jail sentence as punishment. The reincarceration measure counts offenders who were reported as being incarcerated by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, state prison, or local jail for any term of incarceration based on their recidivism events. Incomplete criminal records also create missing information about reincarceration.11 Reconviction classifies a person as a recidivist if an arrest resulted in a subsequent judicial conviction.9 Violations and revocations of supervision are not included in reconvictions since no formal prosecution occurred. While states have improved the completeness of their criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest.10 Such gaps occurred in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, because missing dispositions for rearrests are treated as if reconviction and reincarceration did not occur. In undertaking its current recidivism research, the Commission selected a follow-up period of eight years. It considered all recidivism events (including felonies, misdemeanors, and “technical” violations of the conditions of supervision), except minor traffic offenses, which occurred over that eight-year period. While this report includes summary findings using all three measures (rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration), it primarily relies on rearrest data in providing more detailed information about the recidivism of federal offenders. Rearrest classifies a person as a recidivist if he or she has been arrested for a new crime after being released into the community directly on probation or after serving a term of imprisonment. Rearrest also includes arrests for alleged violations of conditions of federal probation, federal supervised release, or state parole. The number of rearrests in the Commission’s analysis is based on the number of unique arrest dates, regardless of the number of individual charges arising from a single arrest event. Thus, if an offender was arrested on a single occasion for both driving under the influence and possession of cocaine, that arrest date would constitute a single rearrest event. 6 The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders Many rearrests do not ultimately result in a reconviction or reincarceration for reasons relating to procedural safeguards (e.g., the suppression of evidence for an unconstitutional search or seizure), lack of sufficient evidence to convict or revoke, and prosecutorial or judicial resource limitations. To the extent that the rearrest event is an accurate indicator of relapse into criminal behavior, excluding non-conviction or non-incarceration events will result in underestimation of recidivism. Even using the least restrictive measure, rearrest, does not count the full extent of offender recidivism, as many crimes go unreported to police or, if reported, do not result in an arrest. For these reasons, no measure is perfect, and reporting several measures provides a more complete and nuanced picture of recidivism. The three measures overlap in some areas—meaning all offenders who were reconvicted or reincarcerated also were necessarily rearrested. Some offenders who were reconvicted, however, were not reincarcerated. Generally speaking, however, the measure of rearrest is larger than the measure of reconviction, which in turn is larger than the measure of reincarceration. The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders 7 Part Three Introduction to Age and Recidivism Among Federal Offenders Part Three: INTRODUCTION TO AGE AND RECIDIVISM AMONG FEDERAL OFFENDERS Age and Recidivism Among Federal Offenders This report examines the impact of the aging process on recidivism by federal offenders. First, recidivism rates are presented by age at release. Next, the time to the first recidivism event is shown by age at release for those offenders who recidivated. Studying the timing of recidivism can help in understanding the process of desistance across various age cohorts. The number of recidivism events and most serious type of post-release offense among those who recidivated by age at release are also discussed. Contrasting the number and nature of crimes committed across age groups may reveal more information about the threat to public safety posed by various age groups as well as the process of desisting from crime across the aging process. The report then investigates the association between recidivism and factors such as criminal history, demographic factors, offense characteristics, and sentence length. This information is reported by age group in order to better distinguish the impact of these factors while controlling for age at release. As first noted in the Recidivism Overview Report, numerous recidivism studies document well that older offenders are at lower risk for reoffending,12 and the Commission’s own research has confirmed this finding for federal offender populations.13 The Commission’s study found that among all federal offenders released into the community in 2005, those who were below age 21 at release had the highest rearrest rate at over two-thirds (67.6%). Conversely, those oldest at age of release, over 60 years old, had the lowest recidivism rate (16.0 %). For each age grouping shown in the previous report, the older the age group, the lower the rearrest rate. The same pattern held for reconviction and reincarceration rates. 10 The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders According to the National Institute of Justice, “the prevalence of offending tends to increase from late childhood, peak in the teenage years (from 15 to 19) and then decline in the early 20s.”14 Scholars have used official arrest data collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to construct an age-crime curve15 which demonstrates graphically the relationship between age and arrests. National arrest data collected by the FBI in the Uniform Crime Report (UCR) since 193016 and compiled in the FBI’s Crimes in the United States report since 199517 has consistently supported this conclusion concerning age and crime. Figure 1 shows a comparison of arrests by five-year age intervals beginning at age 20 for all 2016 U.S. arrests reported to the FBI and all adult arrests reported in criminal history records provided by the FBI for federal offenders released in 2005, by identical age groupings.18 To construct the federal offender data, the Commission aggregated all arrest incidents from the federal offenders’ entire criminal history as reported on state and federal records.19 That is, each arrest charge is collected and grouped by the age of the offender at the time of that arrest, in the same manner as set forth in Table 20 of the 2016 Crimes in the United States report. Figure 1 demonstrates the close tie between older age and declining arrests, in both the FBI’s UCR20 and prior arrest data obtained on federal offenders from the FBI’s Interstate Identification Index (III) system, which is a national index of criminal histories. In general, the Commission found that total adult arrests for federal offenders were highest in the 20-24 age group, and declined sharply thereafter. The national FBI adult arrests in 2016 display the same pattern. Since arrests are closely associated with age, it is not surprising that federal offenders who enter and exit the federal system at younger ages are more prone to recidivate. In the following sections, this report examines the age and recidivism connection in greater detail. Then this report analyzes age in combination with other offense and offender characteristics. This combination in effect statistically controls for age and reveals the influence, or absence of influence, of other factors which may be thought to impact recidivism over and above the influence of aging. For both federal offenders’ prior arrest history and national 2016 arrests as reported by the FBI, older age groups had fewer arrests. While there are vast differences among individuals which are not explained by age, age is generally a strong factor influencing the likelihood of committing crime, although the reasons for this are complex.21 Fig. 1 Total Arrests by Age All 2016 U.S. Arrests Compared to Recidivism Study Offenders’ Arrest Records 2016 Crime in the United States (FBI) Arrests by Age 1,600,000 1,400,000 1,200,000 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 400,000 200,000 0 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 Lifetime Arrests by Federal Offenders Released in 2005 80,000 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 and over 70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34 35 to 39 55 to 59 60 to 64 65 and over SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT and U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Report, Crime in the United States (2015). The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders 11 Part Four Characteristics of Recidivism Study Group Part Four: CHARACTERISTICS OF RECIDIVISM STUDY GROUP Characteristics of Recidivism Study Group Fig. 2 Age at Release for Recidivism Study Offenders This report examines 25,431 offenders who were released into the community (either from federal prison or on to probation) in calendar year 2005 and, as discussed in the Recidivism Overview Report, were federal offenders: • who are citizens; • whose pre-sentence investigation report was submitted to the Commission; • • • • whose federal sentence was not vacated. Offender Demographics The largest age cohort in this study was those offenders aged 30 to 34 (18.3% of the total) at the time they were released from federal custody into the community (Figure 2). The next largest cohorts at time of release were offenders aged 25 to 29 (16.4%) and 35 to 39 (15.3%). Among the racial and ethnic groups analyzed, most White offenders were 40 years or older (51.6%) at the time of their release (Figure 3). This is the only racial group in the study with more than half of offenders over the age of 40. Black and Hispanic offenders were concentrated in the younger than 40 age cohorts, with Hispanic offenders the youngest of all racial groups (70.9% were younger than 40 at the time of release). The Other race category, which includes American Indians, Alaskan Natives and Asians were also mostly below age 40 (62.9%). The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders Younger than 21 Years 1.6% (n=398) 21 to 24 Years 8.8% (n=2,234) 25 to 29 Years 16.4% (n=4,164) 45 to 49 Years 10.1% (n=2,569) 40 to 44 Years 13.1% (n=3,325) who have valid FBI numbers which could be located in criminal history repositories (in at least one of the 50 states, DC, or federal records); who were not reported dead, escaped, or detained; and 65 Years or Older 2.1% (n=536) 50 to 54 Years 6.8% (n=1,734) who re-entered the community after discharging their sentences of incarceration or by commencing a term of probation in 2005; The advantages of this large study group are substantial. Having several thousand offenders allows more precise estimates of recidivism rates across different subgroups. For example, there are 1,048 released offenders who were older than 60 years of age. 14 55 to 59 Years 4.9% (n=1,235) 60 to 64 Years 2.6% (n=668) 30 to 34 Years 18.3% (n=4,635) 35 to 39 Years 15.3% (n=3,888) SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding. Fig. 3 Race of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release 60 Years or Older 7.6% White n=11,074 50 to 59 Years 16.2% 40 to 49 Years 27.8% 50 to 59 Years 7.5% 60 Years or Hispanic Older n=4,508 2.8% 40 to 49 Years 18.7% 30 to 39 Years 32.9% Younger than 30 Years 20.5% 50 to 59 Years 8.4% 60 Years or Black Older n=8,607 2.2% 40 to 49 Years 19.6% 30 to 39 Years 27.9% Younger than 30 Years 38.0% 50 to 59 Years 9.3% 40 to 49 Years 23.9% 60 Years or Other n=1,174 Older 3.9% Younger than 30 Years 28.0% 30 to 39 Years 41.9% Younger than 30 Years 34.2% 30 to 39 Years 28.7% SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding. The average age of offenders at the time of release increased as educational level increased (Figure 4). Offenders who did not complete high school were the youngest group at the age of release, with 68.5 percent below the age of 40. College graduates were significantly older on average than offenders in other educational cohorts, with around 71.0 percent of college graduates age 40 or older. Female offenders were slightly younger on average than male offenders at the time of release (Figure 5). Specifically, a greater proportion of female offenders were younger than 30 at the time of release, 31.2 percent, compared to 25.8 percent of male offenders. Fig. 4 Education of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release Fig. 5 Gender of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release Less Than High School n=8,641 60 Years or Older 50 to 59 4.0% Years 8.1% Younger than 30 Years 35.5% 40 to 49 Years 19.4% 30 to 39 Years 33.0% 60 Years or Older 4.6% 50 to 59 Years 13.8% 40 to 49 Years 24.3% Some College n=5,399 Younger than 30 Years 21.7% 30 to 39 Years 35.6% 60 Years or Older 3.8% 50 to 59 Years 10.2% High School Graduate n=9,309 Younger than 30 Years 25.9% 40 to 49 Years 24.9% 60 Years or Older 12.8% 50 to 59 Years 29.3% 30 to 39 Years 35.1% College Graduate n=1,879 Younger than 30 Years 5.9% 30 to 39 Years 23.0% 60 Years or Older 5.1% 50 to 59 Years 11.8% 40 to 49 Years 23.1% Male n=20,723 Younger than 30 Years 25.8% 30 to 39 Years 34.2% 60 Years or Older 3.2% Female n=4,654 50 to 59 Years 11.1% Younger than 30 Years 31.2% 40 to 49 Years 23.9% 30 to 39 Years 30.7% SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding. 40 to 49 Years 28.9% SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding. The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders 15 Part Four: CHARACTERISTICS OF RECIDIVISM STUDY GROUP Federal Offense Type and Criminal History Drug trafficking offenders were generally the youngest group of offenders at the time of release (Figure 6). Of all drug trafficking offenders, 68.0 percent were below the age of 40. By comparison, 66.5 percent of firearms offenders and 60.3 percent of robbery offenders were below the age of 40. Fraud offenders were the oldest group with 55.0 percent age 40 or older at the time of release. Fig. 6 Primary Offense Type of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release 60 Years or Older 3.0% 50 to 59 Years 8.3% Drug Trafficking 60 Years n=10,577 or Older 50 to 59 2.7% Years 9.0% 60 Years or Older 2.6% 40 to 49 Years 20.3% 60 Years or Older 8.6% 50 to 59 Years 18.0% 40 to 49 Years 28.4% Younger than 30 Years 29.4% 30 to 39 Years 38.6% Fraud n=3,440 Younger than 30 Years 14.9% 30 to 39 Years 30.2% 50 to 59 Years 9.8% 40 to 49 Years 27.1% Robbery n=1,098 30 to 39 Years 34.2% Younger than 30 Years 33.3% 30 to 39 Years 33.2% All Other n=7,031 50 to 59 Years 14.5% Younger than 30 Years 25.8% 40 to 49 Years 24.8% SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding. 16 Fig. 7 Weapon Enhancement of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release Firearms n=3,238 40 to 49 Years 22.3% Younger than 30 Years 26.1% 60 Years or Older 7.1% Over two-thirds (67.0%) of offenders subject to weapons enhancements were younger than age 40 at the time of release compared to 59.6 percent of offenders who were not subject to such enhancements (Figure 7). The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders 30 to 39 Years 27.9% 60 Years or Older 2.6% 50 to 59 Years 8.9% Weapon Enhancement n=2,498 Younger than 30 Years 26.4% 40 to 49 Years 21.5% 60 Years or Older 5.0% 50 to 59 Years 12.0% No Weapon Enhancement n=22,888 Younger than 30 Years 26.8% 40 to 49 Years 23.4% 30 to 39 Years 40.6% 30 to 39 Years 32.8% SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding. Overall, the age of offenders increased as the offenders’ prior criminal history increased (Figure 8). A federal offender’s prior criminal history score is calculated under Chapter Four of the Guidelines Manual and assigned one of six Criminal History Categories (CHC), CHC I through VI, with CHC VI being the highest prior record category.22 Category I had a larger proportion of offenders younger than 30 years (27.8%) than Category VI (11.1%).23 Conversely, Category VI had the largest group of offenders age 40 or older (47.1%). Fig. 8 Criminal History Category of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release 60 Years or Older 6.5% Category I n=13,549 50 to 59 Years 13.9% 30 to 39 Years 28.7% 40 to 49 Years 23.1% 50 to 59 Years 7.7% 60 Years or Older 2.1% 40 to 49 Years 20.0% Younger than 30 Years 27.8% Category IV n=1,995 Younger than 30 Years 28.5% 30 to 39 Years 41.9% 60 Years or Older Category II n=3,082 3.4% 50 to 59 Years 10.3% 40 to 49 Years 21.9% 60 Years Category V or Older n=1,119 50 to 59 1.6% Years 8.2% 40 to 49 Years 25.2% Younger than 30 Years 29.0% 30 to 39 Years 35.4% Younger than 30 Years 21.8% 30 to 39 Years 43.2% 60 Years or Older 2.9% 50 to 59 Years 8.1% Fig. 9 Base Offense Level of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release Category III n=3,610 40 to 49 Years 20.7% 50 to 59 Years 11.7% The offender’s base offense level is determined by applying the Chapter Two guideline level associated with the conviction offense (Figure 9). A high base offense level, defined as a base offense level of 32 or higher, was associated with a high percentage of offenders between the ages of 30 to 39. Offenders between the ages of 30 to 39 were the only age group to increase consistently across all three categories as shown in Figure 9, from 29.8 percent to 45.4 percent. Offenders younger than 30 reached a high of 31.2 percent in the base offense level 26 to 31 category but decreased to 18.1 percent among the most serious category of offenders with a base offense level between 32 and 43. 60 Years Category VI n=1,921 or Older 2.8% 40 to 49 Years 32.6% SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding. Younger than 30 Years 30.3% 30 to 39 Years 38.0% Younger than 30 Years 11.1% 50 to 59 Years 12.9% 60 Years or Older 2.7% 50 to 59 Years 8.5% 40 to 49 Years 20.2% 30 to 39 Years 41.8% BOL 26 to 31 n=4,463 60 Years or Older 5.6% 40 to 49 Years 24.1% Younger than 30 Years 31.2% 30 to 39 Years 37.5% BOL 6 to 25 n=16,937 Younger than 30 Years 27.6% 30 to 39 Years 29.8% 60 Years or Older 3.5% BOL 32 to 43 n=3,967 50 to 59 Years 10.0% 40 to 49 Years 23.0% Younger than 30 Years 18.1% 30 to 39 Years 45.4% SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding. The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders 17 Part Four: CHARACTERISTICS OF RECIDIVISM STUDY GROUP Sentences Imposed For statistical purposes, the Commission groups the type of federal sentence originally imposed into four categories: prison only, prison and community confinement, probation and confinement, and probation or fine only.24 Prison only offenders were the youngest group at release in the Commission’s study, with 61.9 percent of the offenders who received a prison only sentence under the age of 40 (Figure 10). Offenders who served prison and community confinement sentences were the oldest, with 48.1 percent age 40 or older. Fig. 10 Sentence Type of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release 60 Years or Older 4.1% 50 to 59 Years 11.0% 40 to 49 Years 23.0% Prison Only n=19,572 Younger than 30 Years 26.3% 30 to 39 Years 35.6% Probation and Confinement n=1,191 60 Years or Older 7.3% 50 to 59 Years 15.0% 40 to 49 Years 23.7% Younger than 30 Years 28.6% 30 to 39 Years 25.4% Prison/Community Split Sentence n=973 Younger than 60 Years or Older 6.2% 30 Years 26.8% 50 to 59 Years 14.4% 30 to 39 Years 25.1% 40 to 49 Years 27.5% 60 Years or Older 6.8% Probation or Fine Only n=3,613 Younger than 30 Years 28.8% 50 to 59 Years 14.0% 40 to 49 Years 23.1% 30 to 39 Years 27.4% SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding. 18 The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders The Commission also considered the length of the federal sentence imposed on those in the study group. Offenders serving the longest sentences were the oldest at time of release (Figure 11). For offenders who served a sentence of 120 months or more, the proportion of offenders who were age 40 or older at the time they were released was 48.6 percent, higher than any other group. In contrast, among offenders who served a sentence of 60 to 119 months, the proportion age 40 or older was 36.3 percent, the same proportion as offenders who served a sentence of 24 to 59 months. Fig. 11 Length of Federal Sentence of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release 60 Years or Older 5.3% Up to 6 Months n=1,047 50 to 59 Years 14.0% 40 to 49 Years 26.1% 60 Years or Older 4.0% 50 to 59 Years 10.6% 40 to 49 Years 21.7% Younger than 30 Years 28.1% 30 to 39 Years 26.6% 24 to 59 Months n=8,011 Younger than 30 Years 30.7% 30 to 39 Years 33.0% 60 Years or Older 5.3% 6 to 11 Months n=760 50 to 59 Years 9.1% 40 to 49 Years 25.0% 60 Years 60 to 119 Months or Older n=4,548 3.4% 50 to 59 Years 9.8% 40 to 49 Years 23.1% Younger than 30 Years 34.7% 30 to 39 Years 25.9% Younger than 30 Years 21.9% 30 to 39 Years 41.8% 60 Years or Older 4.7% 50 to 59 Years 11.0% 12 to 23 Months n=3,644 Younger than 30 Years 33.0% 40 to 49 Years 21.8% 60 Years or Older 5.1% 50 to 59 Years 14.7% 30 to 39 Years 29.6% 120 Months or More Younger than n=2,521 30 Years 7.3% 40 to 49 Years 28.8% SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding. 30 to 39 Years 44.0% The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders 19 Part Five Recidivism Rates Among Federal Offenders by Age Part Five: RECIDIVISM RATES AMONG FEDERAL OFFENDERS BY AGE Recidivism Rates Among Federal Offenders by Age The Commission found that younger offenders were more likely to be rearrested than older offenders, were rearrested faster than older offenders, and committed more serious offenses after they were released than older offenders. As shown in Table 1, the Commission’s research shows that the younger than 30 age group had the highest rearrest rate (64.8%) and the rate declined with each age group that follows to a low of 16.4 percent. Younger cohorts had more arrest events during the eight-year follow-up period, a median of three arrest events for the younger than 30 age group compared to one event for those age 50 and older. The Commission ranked new offenses in order of seriousness for those who reoffended. The most serious type of offense likely to cause rearrest also varied by age, from assault (for all age groups under the age of 50) to public order offenses (for age groups 50 and older). Table 1 Overview of Age and Recidivism Study Findings Rearrest Recidivism Measure Percent Median Time to Recidivism Event Median Number of Recidivism Events Most Serious Post-Release Event Younger than 30 Years n=6,796 30 to 39 Years n=8,523 40 to 49 Years n=5,894 50 to 59 Years n=2,969 64.8% 53.6% 43.2% 26.8% 17 Months 3 Assault (26.6%, n=1,170) 22 Months 2 Assault (24.1%, n=1,102) 22 Months 90% 80% Median time to recidivism 70% Younger than 30 Years, 64.8% Age 30 to 39 Years, 53.6% Age 40 to 49 Years, 43.2% 40% 16.4% Other Public Assault Order Offense (20.3%, n=517) (22.5%, n=179) Other Public Order Offense (23.7%, n=47) SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. 100% 50% 60 Years or Older n=1,204 28 Months 1 Fig. 12 Time to First Rearrest of Recidivism Study Offenders 60% 25 Months 2 Figure 12 identifies the median time of rearrest for each age cohort. The measure of time to first recidivism event can be useful in distinguishing offenders who recidivate early from those who eventually recidivate, but are apparently crime-free for a longer interval. The Commission found that the median amount of time between an offender’s release and his or her rearrest, which is highlighted on each timeline, reflected the greater tendency for younger cohorts to recidivate. Offenders who were younger than 30 when they were released had the shortest median time to rearrest (17 months). Conversely, the oldest offenders in the study, those 60 years and older, had the longest time to rearrest (28 months). 1 Age 50 to 59 Years, 26.8% 30% Age 60 Years or Older, 16.4% 20% 10% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Years After Release 8 SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. Figure 13 presents a more detailed breakdown of rearrest rate by 11 age groups. The Commission’s study revealed that the rearrest rate was highest among offenders younger than 21 (67.6%) and those between the ages of 21 to 24 years old (66.6%) and declined in each subsequent age group. 22 The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders Fig. 13 Rearrest Rates for Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release Fig. 15 Reincarceration Rates for Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release 100% 100% 90% 90% 80% 70% 60% 67.6% 66.6% 50% 63.6% 80% 56.5% 40% 70% 50.1% 46.5% 30% 60% 38.8% 20% 10% 0% Younger than 21 Years n=398 21 to 24 Years n=2,234 25 to 29 Years n=4,164 30 to 34 Years n=4,635 35 to 39 Years n=3,888 40 to 44 Years n=3,325 45 to 49 Years n=2,569 30.1% 50 to 54 Years n=1,734 50% 22.2% 55 to 59 Years n=1,235 40% 18.9% 60 to 64 Years n=668 13.4% 65 Years or Older n=536 SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. Fig. 14 Reconviction Rates for Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release 100% 90% 80% 70% 50% 40% 48.5% 48.4% 42.7% 30% 36.0% 20% 10% 0% Younger than 21 Years n=398 21 to 24 Years n=2,234 25 to 29 Years n=4,164 30 to 34 Years n=4,635 31.3% 35 to 39 Years n=3,888 30.3% 40 to 44 Years n=3,325 22.3% 45 to 49 Years n=2,569 15.9% 50 to 54 Years n=1,734 12.2% 11.4% 55 to 59 Years n=1,235 60 to 64 Years n=668 38.6% 33.7% 20% 10% 0% Younger than 21 Years n=398 21 to 24 Years n=2,234 25 to 29 Years n=4,164 27.7% 30 to 34 Years n=4,635 24.2% 35 to 39 Years n=3,888 23.0% 40 to 44 Years n=3,325 17.4% 45 to 49 Years n=2,569 12.8% 50 to 54 Years n=1,734 9.0% 8.8% 55 to 59 Years n=1,235 60 to 64 Years n=668 4.1% 65 Years or Older n=536 SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. The reconviction rate is highest among offenders younger than 21 (48.5%) and those between the ages of 21 to 24 years old (48.4%) and declined in each subsequent age group. Time to reconviction expanded with age and severity of reconviction offense declined with age, in a pattern like that shown with rearrest in Figure 14.25 60% 30% 35.7% 6.5% The reincarceration rate was highest among those between the ages of 21 to 24 years old (38.6%) and declined in each subsequent age group.26 Time to reincarceration expands with age and severity of reincarceration offense declined with age, in a pattern like that shown with rearrest in Figure 15.27 Demographics White offenders had the lowest rearrest rate overall, starting with 59.1 percent for the youngest age group and declining to a low of 15.7 percent in the 60 years or older age cohort (Figure 16 on the next page). Black offenders had the highest rearrest rate overall, starting with 72.7 percent in the youngest age cohort, which is the highest recidivism rate among all age categories. The other racial category, which includes American Indians, Alaskan Natives and Asians, had the second highest overall rearrest rate, starting with a 65.1 percent rearrest rate in the youngest age cohort before declining. 65 Years or Older n=536 SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders 23 Part Five: RECIDIVISM RATES AMONG FEDERAL OFFENDERS BY AGE Male offenders had a higher rearrest rate than female offenders in every age category (Figure 18). In the younger than 30 age cohort, men had a 69.5 percent rearrest rate compared to 47.6 percent for women. The rearrest rate declined for both male and female offenders with each subsequent age group. Fig. 16 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Race and Age at Release 100% 90% Younger than 30 Years 30 to 39 Years 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 50 to 59 Years 52.2% 36.0% 39.4% 23.7% 15.7% 20% 10% 0% Black 100% 50.5% 48.7% 90% 42.0% 39.2% 24.4% 19.1% 19.4% White 65.1% 61.2% 59.9% 48.9% 60 Years or Older Fig. 18 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Gender and Age at Release 72.7% 59.1% 30% 40 to 49 Years 80% 22.9% 10.9% Hispanic 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 74.4% 63.0% 30 to 39 Years 40 to 49 Years 62.9% 55.0% 51.5% 31.0% 17.2% Less than High School 45.0% 30.6% 18.8% High School Graduate 50 to 59 Years 60 Years or Older 47.3% 44.1% 37.9% 24.9% 16.1% 27.0% Some College 21.2% 21.5% 16.5% 24 The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders 11.6% College Graduate SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. 40% 10% Fig. 17 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Education and Age at Release Younger than 30 Years 50% 56.2% 0% 40 to 49 Years 50 to 59 Years 60 Years or Older 47.6% 46.4% 29.2% 20% The overall rearrest rate decreased with every step of educational achievement (Figure 17). Every education group experienced a decline in rearrest rates as age increases. Offenders who did not complete high school generally had the highest rearrest rates in all age categories compared to other educational cohorts, starting with a 74.4 percent rearrest rate in the youngest age cohort. College graduates had the lowest rearrest rates among the educational groups. 90% 60% 69.5% 30 to 39 Years 30% Other SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. 100% 70% Younger than 30 Years 17.1% Male 40.7% 29.1% 15.3% 12.0% Female SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. Federal Offense Type and Criminal History Offenders whose primary offense involved robbery or firearms had higher rearrest rates in all age categories (Figure 19). The Commission found that firearm offenders had a rearrest rate of 79.3 percent in the younger than 30 cohort, the highest rearrest rate among all sentencing types. Robbery offenders, unlike all other offense types, did not experience a continuous decline in rearrest rates as they aged. Instead, rearrest rates increased from the younger than 30 age cohort (66.2%) to the 40 to 49 age cohort (71.5%) before experiencing a sharp decline. Rearrest rates decline with age across every base offense level group analyzed (Figure 20). Comparing similar age groups across base offense levels, the Commission found that the lowest base offense level group had a modestly higher recidivism rate across most age categories than those with higher base offense levels. For example, in the younger than 30 age cohort, those with base offense levels of 25 or lower had a 66.3 percent rearrest rate, somewhat higher than those offenders with base offense levels of 32 or higher (60.2%). Fig. 19 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Primary Offense Type at Sentencing and Age at Release 100% Younger than 30 Years 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 79.3% 62.8% 52.0% 30.2% 26.8% 17.5% 20% 50 to 59 Years 10% Drug Trafficking 80% 19.7% Fraud 60% 23.3% 14.5% All Other 30 to 39 Years 40 to 49 Years 27.9% 20% 0% 60 Years or Older 64.2% 30% 10% 50 to 59 Years 48.9% 40% 37.7% Robbery 57.7% 50% 50.6% 12.5% Firearms 70.2% 70% 34.5% 31.8% Younger than 30 Years 90% 63.0% 54.6% 41.8% 100% 60 Years or Older 71.0% 71.5% 66.2% 53.6% 44.8% 42.3% 30% 40 to 49 Years 70.4% 62.5% 40% 0% 30 to 39 Years Fig. 21 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Weapon Enhancement and Age at Release 53.0% 42.6% 17.2% Weapon Enhancement 26.7% 16.4% No Weapon Enhancement SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. Offenders with a weapon enhancement had a higher rearrest rate than offenders who did not across all age groups (Figure 21). For example, federal offenders who were younger than 30 and had a weapon enhancement had a rearrest rate of 70.2 percent compared to 64.2 percent for those younger than 30 without a weapon enhancement. Rearrest rates increased with the Criminal History Category (CHC) of offenders across all age groups (Figure 22). For instance, offenders who were younger than 30 and in CHC I had a 53 percent rearrest rate, compared to 79.5 percent for that same age group in CHC III, and 89.7 percent for that same age group in CHC VI. Fig. 20 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Base Offense Level and Age at Release Fig. 22 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Criminal History Category and Age at Release 100% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Younger than 30 Years 66.3% 40 to 49 Years 62.3% 55.7% 44.3% 27.6% 10% 0% 30 to 39 Years BOL 6 to 25 16.5% 52.9% 50 to 59 Years 60 Years or Older 60.2% 43.8% 25.7% BOL 26 to 31 19.3% 90% 80% 70% 48.4% Younger than 30 Years 60% 50% 37.1% 40% 23.4% BOL 32 to 43 SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. 30% 13.6% 20% 10% 0% 30 to 39 Years 79.5% 70.1% 35.3% 25.9% 16.1% 11.3% Category I 54.0% 47.2% 30.1% 22.6% Category II 50 to 59 Years 86.3% 73.5% 72.4% 63.7% 55.8% 53.0% 40 to 49 Years 38.4% 51.6% 46.3% 60 Years or Older 90.6% 79.9% 71.3% 89.7% 84.6% 80.2% 64.9% 58.7% 44.4% 37.7% 25.5% Category III Category IV Category V Category VI SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders 25 Part Five: RECIDIVISM RATES AMONG FEDERAL OFFENDERS BY AGE Federal Sentence Imposed Offenders who received a prison only sentence had a higher rearrest rate than offenders who received a different form of sentence (Figure 23). For instance, offenders who received sentences of prison only and who were younger than 30 years of age had a rearrest rate of 68.6 percent compared to 53.6 percent for offenders in the same age group who received split sentences and 55.4 percent for offenders in the same age group who were sentenced to probation and confinement. Offenders younger than 30 who were sentenced to probation or fine only had a rearrest rate of 51.5 percent. Rearrest rates declined with the age at release across all sentence lengths (Figure 24). For example, among offenders with imprisonment sentences up to six months, those younger than age 30 at release had the highest rearrest rate (52.7%) while offenders 60 years and older at release had the lowest rearrest rate (20.0%). In general, there was some association between the length of the original federal sentence and rearrest rates. Offenders with the shortest imprisonment sentences, of up to six months, had the lowest rearrest rates for four of the five age groups studied. Offenders with sentences of 120 months or longer had the highest rearrest rates for two of the age groups studied and among the highest rearrest rates for the remaining three age groups. Among all offenders sentenced to one year of imprisonment or longer, the association between sentence length and rearrest rates was less clear. For example, for offenders younger than 30 at release, the rearrest rate was approximately 70 percent regardless of the length of sentence imposed, ranging from 69.2 percent for offenders sentenced from 12 to 23 months of imprisonment to 68.1 percent for offenders sentenced to 120 months or longer, with the highest rearrest rate of 71.4 percent for offenders sentenced to 60 to 119 months. Fig. 23 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Type of Federal Sentence Imposed and Age at Release 100% 90% Younger than 30 Years 30 to 39 Years 40 to 49 Years 50 to 59 Years 60 Years or Older 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 10% 56.9% 47.9% 41.8% 30.2% 26.6% 18.9% 15.0% 20% 0% 44.7% 35.5% 27.7% 30% 53.6% 55.4% 51.5% 68.6% 11.7% 9.2% Probation or Fine Only Probation and Confinement 29.6% 22.9% 19.0% Prison/Community Split Sentence Prison Only SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. Fig. 24 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Length of Federal Sentence and Age at Release 100% 90% Younger than 30 Years 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 30 to 39 Years 69.2% 61.4% 52.7% 42.5% 28.9% 20.4% 20.0% Up to 6 Months 40 to 49 Years 54.8% 33.3% 15.0% 6 to 11 Months 12.3% 12 to 23 Months 58.5% 52.8% 50.3% 47.6% 24.3% 68.1% 58.7% 56.9% 41.5% 60 Years or Older 71.4% 68.4% 52.8% 45.8% 50 to 59 Years 29.8% 31.8% 24 to 59 Months 60 to 119 Months 19.0% 32.4% 20.9% 17.4% 120 Months or More SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. 26 The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders 18.0% To compare the federal offenders in this study to offenders released from state custody, the Commission compared the recidivism rates for prisoners in the Commission’s recidivism cohort to a cohort of state prisoners released into the community in 2005 using a five-year follow-up period (Figure 25).28 As reflected in Figure 25, state prisoners had a higher rearrest rate than federal prisoners in every age category. Also, the gap in the rearrest rate between state and federal prisoners increased with each age group. Federal prisoners in the youngest age group had a 63.2 percent rearrest rate compared to 84.1 percent for state prisoners. In the oldest age group, the rearrest rate declined to 32.5 percent for federal offenders compared to 69.2 percent for state prisoners. Fig. 25 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders for Federal and State Prisoners by Age at Release: Five Year Post Release 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 63.2% 84.1% 50% 80.3% 57.6% 40% 77.0% 78.1% 50.3% 44.5% 30 to 34 Years 35 to 39 Years 30% 20% 10% 0% 24 Years or Younger 25 to 29 Years Federal Prisoners State Prisoners 69.2% 32.5% 40 Years Or Older SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States (2005). The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders 27 Part Six Conclusion Part Six: CONCLUSION Conclusion This is the fourth report in the Commission’s ongoing recidivism study. This report examined the impact of the aging process on federal offender recidivism and the impact of other offense and offender factors once age is accounted for. The Commission found that older offenders are substantially less likely to recidivate following release compared to younger cohorts. Among offenders released younger than age 21, 67.6 percent were rearrested compared to 13.4 percent of those released age 65 or older. The pattern is consistent across age groups, as age increases recidivism by any measure declined. Older offenders who do recidivate do so later in the follow-up period, do so less frequently, and had less serious recidivism offenses on average. The Commission found that age is not the only factor associated with recidivism. After accounting for age, criminal history as measured by the offenders’ Criminal History Category was closely correlated with recidivism rates. Demographic factors including gender (males had higher rates), race and ethnicity (minorities had higher rates), and education levels (those with lower education levels had higher rates) also stood out. Other factors found to be associated with recidivism rates after accounting for age include sentence length for offenders less than age 50: the shortest lengths are associated with less recidivism up to sentences of one year, beyond which recidivism rates level off. Some offense characteristics, in particular primary federal offense (firearms and robbery, for example) and weapon enhancement, are associated with higher recidivism rates. The Commission will issue additional reports in this recidivism study series in the coming months. 30 The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders 31 Part Seven Endnotes Endnotes Endnotes 1 The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial branch of government. Established by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, its principal purposes are (1) to establish sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts, including guidelines regarding the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes; (2) to advise and assist Congress, the federal judiciary, and the executive branch in the development of effective and efficient crime policy; and (3) to collect, analyze, research, and distribute a broad array of information on federal crime and sentencing issues. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 995(a)(14), (15), (20). 2 See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Recidivism Among Federal Offenders: A Comprehensive Overview (2016) [hereinafter Recidivism Overview Report], https://www. ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2016/ recidivism_overview.pdf; U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Recidivism Among Federal Drug Trafficking Offenders (2017), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/ research-publications/2017/20170221_Recidivism-Drugs.pdf; and U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, The Past Predicts the Future: Criminal History and Recidivism of Federal Offenders (2017), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/researchpublications/2017/20170309_Recidivism-CH.pdf. 3 28 U.S.C. § 991(b)(2). 4 See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Supplementary Report On The Initial Sentencing Guidelines And Policy Statements 41–44 (1987), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/ guidelines-manual/1987/manual-pdf/1987_Supplementary_Report_Initial_Sentencing_Guidelines. pdf [hereinafter “Supplementary Report”]. 5 See, e.g., U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Recidivism Among Offenders Receiving Retroactive Sentencing Reductions: The 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment (2014), https:// www.ussc.gov/research/research-publications/recidivism-among-offenders-receiving-retroactivesentencereductions-2007-crack-cocaine-amendment [hereinafter “Crack Cocaine Recidivism Report”] and U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 2016 Report to the Congress: Career Offender Enhancements (2016), https://www.ussc.gov/research/congressional-reports/2016-reportcongress-career-offender-enhancements. 6 Public order offenses include violations of conditions of federal probation, federal supervised release, or state parole and crimes such as obstruction of justice and failure to appear. 7 See Nat’l Institute of Justice, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Recidivism, https://web.archive. org/web/20160120175242/http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome. aspx (Jan. 20, 2016). 8 34 See Recidivism Overview Report, supra note 2, at 7-8. 9 Revocations were not counted as reconvictions because the offenders were not convicted of a new offense (even if the basis for revocation was a “new law violation”). Offenders whose terms of supervision were revoked and who were sentenced to imprisonment were treated as having been reincarcerated. The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders 10 See U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance The Completeness Of Records Used For Employment-Related Background Checks (2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162. 11 Id. 13 See Recidivism Overview Report, supra note 2, at 23 (Figure 11). 15 Farrington, supra, at 191. 12 See Recidivism Overview Report, supra note 2, at n.56. The relationship between age and propensity to commit crime was first documented in 1842. See Adolphe Quietelet, A Treatise On Man And The Development of His Faculties (1842). See also, https://www.nij.gov/topics/ crime/Pages/delinquency-to-adult-offending.aspx. For more recent discussion of the development of offending behavior, age-related risk factors, and the effects of life events on offending see D. P. Farrington, Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues. The 2002 Sutherland Award Address, 41 Criminology 221–55 (2003). 14 https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/Pages/delinquency-to-adult-offending.aspx. However, different types of offenses peak at different ages, and individual propensities differ from aggregate totals. See David P. Farrington, “Age and Crime,” in 7 Crime and Justice: An Annual Review of Research 189 (Michael Tonry & Norval Morris, eds., 1986). 16 Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Report, (2017), https://ucr.fbi. gov/?came_from=https%3A//ucr.fbi.gov/word. 17 See Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crimes in the United States, https://ucr.fbi.gov/ crime-in-the-u.s. 18 Prior record data on federal offenders includes arrests reported prior to their 2005 release as well as any arrests that may be reported post-2005, in other words the entire criminal record for federal offenders available at the time of Interstate Identification Index (III) data collection. In contrast, all the 2016 U.S. arrests are a snapshot of a single year for all offenses in the United States cleared through an arrest. The comparison is therefore covering widely different time intervals, and is presented merely to suggest that the same general relationship of age and arrests holds true for federal offenders as for all offenders arrested in 2016. While 2016 U.S. arrest data is available for juvenile arrests, state reporting in III on juveniles is often unavailable, requiring this comparison to adults only. To put the comparison on the same scale, five-year intervals were chosen, beginning with the interval from age 20 through 24. 19 For example, if an offender is reported arrested for two charges at age 20 and one charge at age 25, that offender adds two incidents to the age 20-24 group and one to the age 25-29 group. 20 See Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crimes in the United States 2016, at Table 20, Arrests by Age 2016, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topicpages/tables/table-20. 21 There are many theories attempting to explain this aggregate pattern of rising crime through teenage years followed by steady decline at some point after age 20. The age-crime curve captures both the prevalence of offending (the number of people committing a criminal act) and the incidence (number of criminal acts those people commit). There is no single well-established cause of offending, and contributing factors may be both biological (e.g., brain functioning changes in transition from child to adult – see G. Sweeten, Alex Piquero, and L. Steinberg, Age and the Explanation of Crime, Revisited, 42 J. Youth and Adolescence 921–38 (2013)) and sociological (e.g., informal and formal bonds with others and with the community which may aggravate or deter offending). Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson argued that the shape of the age-crime curve was similar across time and place, and largely unaffected by life events after childhood. Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson, Age and the Explanation of Crime, 89 Am. J. Sociology 552-84 (1983). They argue that individual differences are primarily explained by level of self-control and assert that the decline in adulthood is due primarily to reduced incidents of crime. On the other hand, Blumstein, Cohen, and Farrington assert that the decline in the aggregate age-crime curve is explained at least in part by the termination of criminal careers for most offenders by early adulthood. Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen, and David P. Farrington, Criminal Career Research: Its Value for Criminology, 26 Criminology 1 (1988). That is, the rapid decline in the age-crime curve reflects desistance from crime. Sampson and Laub document termination in criminal careers for a sample of offenders and the mechanisms which foster the turn away from crime. See Robert Sampson and John H. Laub, Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life (1993) (expanding on adult choice making, arguing that different choices taken over the adult life course, especially good marriages and other positive turning points over the life course help explain desistance from crime.) Therefore, the decline in the aggregate age-crime curve may be attributable to former offenders who have made the necessary life course changes. See Ray Paternoster and Shawn Bushway, Desistance and the Feared Self: Toward an Identity Theory of Criminal Desistance, 99 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (2006) (that desistance from crime is a choice, that offenders who previously identified with a criminal lifestyle and criminal associates may begin to find the costs of this commitment exceeded by the benefits, providing a motivation to change their lives and associates and desist from crime). 26 One exception occurs with reincarceration. Those under age 21, a small group, have a slightly lower rate of reincarceration (35.7%) compared to those between ages 21 and 24 (38.6%). 27 The shortest time to arrest leading to reincarceration (29 months) is attributed to the younger than 30 cohort and increases to 51 months in the last age group. The most serious type of offense most likely to cause reincarceration also shifts with age from assault (for all age groups under the age of 50) to public order offenses (for age 50 to 59) or drug trafficking (for age 60 or older). 28 Matthew Durose, Alexia Cooper, and Howard Snyder, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep’t of justice, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 (2014), http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf. 22 For more information on how an offender’s criminal history is addressed under the sentencing guidelines, see U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Guidelines Manual, Ch. 4 (Nov. 2016) [hereinafter USSG]. 23 For more information on the relationship between CHC and recidivism see U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, The Past Predicts the Future: Criminal History and Recidivism of Federal Offenders, supra note 2. 24 These four different sentence types correspond to the four “Zones” (A-D) in the Sentencing Table in the Guidelines Manual. See USSG, supra note 22, at Ch. 5, Pt. A (Sentencing Table); see also USSG §§5B1.1 & 5C1.1 (setting forth the sentencing options for Zones A-D). Zone A authorizes probation only; Zone B authorizes probation with a condition of confinement; Zone C authorizes a “split” sentence of imprisonment and community confinement (e.g., home detention or a halfway house); and Zone D authorizes sentences of imprisonment only. See USSG §§5B1.1 & 5C1.1. 25 The shortest time to arrest leading to a reconviction (29 months) is attributed to the younger than 30 cohort and increases to 39 months in the last age group. The most serious type of offense most likely to cause reconviction also shifts with age from assault (for all age groups under the age of 50) to public order offenses (for age 50 to 59) or drug trafficking (for age 60 or older). The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders 35 Part Eight Appendix Part Eight: APPENDIX Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Race and Age at Release Total Under 30 Years of Age Race White Black Hispanic Other 30-39 Years of Age Race White Black Hispanic Other 40-49 Years of Age Race White Black Hispanic Other 50-59 Years of Age Race White Black Hispanic Other 60 Years of Age or Older Race White Black Hispanic Other Rearrest % 49.3% Reconviction % 31.7% Reincarceration % 24.7% 2,265 2,410 1,714 401 59.1% 72.7% 61.2% 65.1% % 40.8% 51.4% 40.2% 49.1% % 31.1% 40.7% 31.9% 44.1% % 3,090 3,604 1,485 337 48.9% 59.9% 48.7% 50.5% % 31.9% 36.4% 31.3% 35.0% % 24.2% 28.0% 24.7% 27.9% % 3,076 1,688 843 281 39.4% 52.2% 39.2% 42.0% % 25.7% 30.9% 22.5% 27.1% % 19.1% 24.2% 17.4% 23.8% % 1,797 719 340 109 23.7% 36.0% 24.4% 22.9% % 12.7% 18.8% 14.4% 11.9% % 9.9% 14.7% 11.5% 9.2% % 846 186 126 46 15.7% 19.4% 19.1% 10.9% 7.8% 15.6% 10.3% 6.5% 5.2% 12.9% 7.9% 6.5% N 25,386 While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest. Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162. SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group because of missing information. A-38 The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Education and Age at Release Total Under 30 Years of Age Education Less Than High School High School Graduate Some College College Graduate 30-39 Years of Age Education Less Than High School High School Graduate Some College College Graduate 40-49 Years of Age Education Less Than High School High School Graduate Some College College Graduate 50-59 Years of Age Education Less Than High School High School Graduate Some College College Graduate 60 Years of Age or Older Education Less Than High School High School Graduate Some College College Graduate Rearrest % 49.3% Reconviction % 31.7% Reincarceration % 24.7% 3,067 2,412 1,170 111 74.4% 62.9% 47.3% 27.0% % 53.2% 43.0% 29.7% 16.2% % 43.6% 33.1% 21.1% 11.7% % 2,849 3,269 1,923 433 63.0% 55.0% 44.1% 21.5% % 40.9% 35.0% 26.1% 11.8% % 32.8% 27.0% 18.5% 7.4% % 1,679 2,319 1,313 543 51.5% 45.0% 37.9% 21.2% % 30.9% 28.6% 24.1% 12.5% % 24.0% 22.2% 18.1% 8.7% % 698 953 744 551 31.0% 30.6% 24.9% 16.5% % 18.2% 16.2% 12.2% 8.2% % 14.6% 12.5% 9.8% 5.8% % 348 356 249 241 17.2% 18.8% 16.1% 11.6% 9.5% 11.2% 8.4% 5.8% 7.2% 7.9% 6.0% 4.2% N 25,386 While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest. Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162. SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group because of missing information. The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders A-39 Part Eight: APPENDIX Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Gender and Age at Release Total Under 30 Years of Age Gender Male Female 30-39 Years of Age Gender Male Female 40-49 Years of Age Gender Male Female 50-59 Years of Age Gender Male Female 60 Years of Age or Older Gender Male Female Rearrest % 49.3% Reconviction % 31.7% Reincarceration % 24.7% 5,342 1,451 69.5% 47.6% % 48.6% 31.2% % 39.2% 21.7% % 7,092 1,427 56.2% 40.7% % 35.9% 23.7% % 28.1% 15.8% % 4,783 1,110 46.4% 29.1% % 29.1% 16.8% % 22.8% 10.7% % 2,453 516 29.2% 15.3% % 15.5% 8.7% % 12.2% 6.4% % 1,053 150 17.1% 12.0% 9.4% 8.0% 6.8% 6.0% N 25,386 While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest. Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162. SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group because of missing information. A-40 The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Primary Offense Type and Age at Release Total Under 30 Years of Age Primary Offense Type Drug Trafficking Firearms Fraud Robbery All Other 30-39 Years of Age Primary Offense Type Drug Trafficking Firearms Fraud Robbery All Other 40-49 Years of Age Primary Offense Type Drug Trafficking Firearms Fraud Robbery All Other 50-59 Years of Age Primary Offense Type Drug Trafficking Firearms Fraud Robbery All Other 60 Years of Age or Older Primary Offense Type Drug Trafficking Firearms Fraud Robbery All Other Rearrest % 49.3% Reconviction % 31.7% Reincarceration % 24.7% 3,110 1,077 511 287 1,811 62.5% 79.3% 53.6% 66.2% 63.0% % 41.2% 60.2% 36.4% 43.2% 44.8% % 31.7% 49.4% 25.1% 37.6% 36.2% % 4,078 1,074 1,037 376 1,958 52.0% 70.4% 41.8% 71.0% 50.6% % 31.5% 47.8% 26.1% 47.9% 32.5% % 23.7% 39.8% 18.4% 42.8% 24.4% % 2,151 721 977 298 1,745 42.3% 62.8% 31.8% 71.5% 37.7% % 24.5% 40.4% 19.2% 51.7% 24.0% % 18.4% 31.8% 13.4% 46.6% 18.2% % 952 270 618 108 1,021 26.8% 44.8% 19.7% 54.6% 23.3% % 14.1% 24.4% 10.4% 35.2% 12.1% % 11.5% 19.3% 7.8% 27.8% 9.2% % 286 96 297 29 496 17.5% 30.2% 12.5% 34.5% 14.5% 10.1% 20.8% 6.7% 13.8% 7.7% 6.6% 15.6% 4.7% 13.8% 5.9% N 25,386 While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest. Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162. SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group because of missing information. The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders A-41 Part Eight: APPENDIX Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Base Offense Level and Age at Release Total Under 30 Years of Age Base Offense Level 6 to 25 26 to 31 32 to 43 30-39 Years of Age Base Offense Level 6 to 25 26 to 31 32 to 43 40-49 Years of Age Base Offense Level 6 to 25 26 to 31 32 to 43 50-59 Years of Age Base Offense Level 6 to 25 26 to 31 32 to 43 60 Years of Age or Older Base Offense Level 6 to 25 26 to 31 32 to 43 Rearrest % 49.3% Reconviction % 31.7% Reincarceration % 24.7% 4,682 1,393 716 66.3% 62.3% 60.2% % 46.9% 41.4% 38.7% % 37.4% 31.2% 31.2% % 5,046 1,673 1,801 55.7% 52.9% 48.4% % 36.6% 32.1% 27.8% % 28.8% 23.6% 20.8% % 4,073 901 913 44.3% 43.8% 37.1% % 28.0% 26.1% 21.9% % 21.8% 19.8% 15.8% % 2,192 377 397 27.6% 25.7% 23.4% % 15.1% 11.7% 12.9% % 11.6% 10.1% 10.3% % 944 119 140 16.5% 19.3% 13.6% 9.2% 10.9% 7.9% 6.9% 7.6% 5.0% N 25,386 While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest. Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162. SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group because of missing information. A-42 The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Weapon Enhancement and Age at Release Total Under 30 Years of Age Weapon Enhancement No Weapon Enhancement Weapon Enhancement 30-39 Years of Age Weapon Enhancement No Weapon Enhancement Weapon Enhancement 40-49 Years of Age Weapon Enhancement No Weapon Enhancement Weapon Enhancement 50-59 Years of Age Weapon Enhancement No Weapon Enhancement Weapon Enhancement 60 Years of Age or Older Weapon Enhancement No Weapon Enhancement Weapon Enhancement Rearrest % 49.3% Reconviction % 31.7% Reincarceration % 24.7% 6,136 660 64.2% 70.2% % 44.4% 48.9% % 34.9% 40.6% % 7,509 1,014 53.0% 57.7% % 33.7% 35.2% % 25.8% 27.8% % 5,356 538 42.6% 48.9% % 26.4% 30.5% % 20.2% 24.7% % 2,747 222 26.7% 27.9% % 14.2% 15.8% % 11.1% 12.2% % 1,140 64 16.4% 17.2% 9.2% 9.4% 6.6% 9.4% N 25,386 While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest. Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162. SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group because of missing information. The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders A-43 Part Eight: APPENDIX Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Criminal History Category and Age at Release Total Under 30 Years of Age Criminal History Category CHC I CHC II CHC III CHC IV CHC V CHC VI 30-39 Years of Age Criminal History Category CHC I CHC II CHC III CHC IV CHC V CHC VI 40-49 Years of Age Criminal History Category CHC I CHC II CHC III CHC IV CHC V CHC VI 50-59 Years of Age Criminal History Category CHC I CHC II CHC III CHC IV CHC V CHC VI 60 Years of Age or Older Criminal History Category CHC I CHC II CHC III CHC IV CHC V CHC VI Rearrest % 49.3% Reconviction % 31.7% Reincarceration % 24.7% 3,771 895 1,095 568 244 214 53.0% 70.1% 79.5% 86.3% 90.6% 89.7% % 34.1% 47.2% 56.7% 66.9% 73.8% 72.9% % 25.4% 35.5% 46.5% 57.4% 66.0% 61.7% % 3,890 1,091 1,371 835 483 803 35.3% 55.8% 63.7% 73.5% 79.9% 84.6% % 19.6% 32.9% 40.2% 47.1% 59.2% 63.5% % 12.9% 23.1% 31.5% 39.8% 51.6% 54.8% % 3,135 674 746 398 282 626 25.9% 47.2% 54.0% 72.4% 71.3% 80.2% % 14.0% 26.9% 33.0% 49.0% 46.5% 59.1% % 9.4% 18.7% 24.5% 40.0% 39.4% 51.9% % 1,877 316 292 153 92 225 16.1% 30.1% 38.4% 51.6% 58.7% 64.9% % 8.1% 13.6% 19.9% 32.7% 32.6% 40.0% % 5.5% 9.5% 17.8% 28.1% 29.4% 33.8% % 876 106 106 41 18 53 11.3% 22.6% 25.5% 46.3% 44.4% 37.7% 5.9% 12.3% 16.0% 29.3% 27.8% 22.6% 4.1% 9.4% 11.3% 19.5% 22.2% 20.8% N 25,386 While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest. Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162. SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group because of missing information. A-44 The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Sentence Type and Age at Release Total Under 30 Years of Age Sentence Type Probation or Fine Only Probation and Confinement Prison/Confinement Split Prison Only 30-39 Years of Age Sentence Type Probation or Fine Only Probation and Confinement Prison/Confinement Split Prison Only 40-49 Years of Age Sentence Type Probation or Fine Only Probation and Confinement Prison/Confinement Split Prison Only 50-59 Years of Age Sentence Type Probation or Fine Only Probation and Confinement Prison/Confinement Split Prison Only 60 Years of Age or Older Sentence Type Probation or Fine Only Probation and Confinement Prison/Confinement Split Prison Only Rearrest % 49.3% Reconviction % 31.7% Reincarceration % 24.7% 1,039 341 261 5,144 51.5% 55.4% 53.6% 68.6% % 34.2% 34.6% 34.1% 48.3% % 21.6% 23.8% 25.3% 39.5% % 989 302 244 6,971 35.5% 44.7% 41.8% 56.9% % 20.7% 27.8% 25.4% 36.3% % 11.8% 14.9% 16.0% 28.9% % 835 282 268 4,501 27.7% 26.6% 30.2% 47.9% % 16.9% 14.9% 17.2% 29.9% % 9.1% 11.0% 11.2% 23.8% % 504 179 140 2,145 18.9% 19.0% 22.9% 29.6% % 8.9% 10.6% 13.6% 15.9% % 5.2% 7.3% 7.1% 13.2% % 246 87 60 811 15.0% 9.2% 11.7% 18.0% 10.2% 4.6% 5.0% 9.7% 6.5% 3.5% 3.3% 7.4% N 25,386 While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest. Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162. SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group because of missing information. The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders A-45 Part Eight: APPENDIX Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Length of Federal Sentence and Age at Release Total Under 30 Years of Age Length of Federal Sentence Up to 6 Months 6 to 11 Months 12 to 23 Months 24 to 59 Months 60 to 119 Months 120 Months or More 30-39 Years of Age Length of Federal Sentence Up to 6 Months 6 to 11 Months 12 to 23 Months 24 to 59 Months 60 to 119 Months 120 Months or More 40-49 Years of Age Length of Federal Sentence Up to 6 Months 6 to 11 Months 12 to 23 Months 24 to 59 Months 60 to 119 Months 120 Months or More 50-59 Years of Age Length of Federal Sentence Up to 6 Months 6 to 11 Months 12 to 23 Months 24 to 59 Months 60 to 119 Months 120 Months or More 60 Years of Age or Older Length of Federal Sentence Up to 6 Months 6 to 11 Months 12 to 23 Months 24 to 59 Months 60 to 119 Months 120 Months or More Rearrest % 49.3% Reconviction % 31.7% Reincarceration % 24.7% 294 264 1,204 2,457 995 185 52.7% 61.4% 69.2% 68.4% 71.4% 68.1% % 34.7% 43.9% 48.6% 48.8% 47.8% 48.1% % 26.2% 31.8% 40.3% 40.3% 38.9% 39.5% % 278 197 1,077 2,647 1,903 1,110 42.5% 54.8% 52.8% 56.9% 58.7% 58.5% % 25.5% 32.0% 34.6% 36.8% 37.2% 36.0% % 16.2% 26.9% 27.1% 29.5% 29.4% 29.4% % 273 190 793 1,734 1,049 727 28.9% 45.8% 41.5% 47.6% 50.3% 52.8% % 17.6% 23.7% 25.5% 29.1% 32.6% 34.4% % 11.4% 16.8% 21.8% 22.4% 25.6% 28.6% % 147 69 399 852 446 370 20.4% 33.3% 24.3% 29.8% 31.8% 32.4% % 12.2% 17.4% 16.0% 15.1% 16.1% 17.8% % 7.5% 11.6% 13.0% 12.6% 13.0% 15.7% % 55 40 171 321 155 129 20.0% 15.0% 12.3% 19.0% 17.4% 20.9% 12.7% 15.0% 6.4% 9.4% 9.0% 10.9% 9.1% 7.5% 5.3% 7.5% 6.5% 8.5% N 25,386 While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest. Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162. SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group because of missing information. A-46 The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders Recidivism Rates for Federal and State Prisoners by Age at Release: Five Year Post-Release 24 Years or Younger Federal or State Prisoners Federal Prisoners State Prisoners 25 to 29 Years Federal or State Prisoners Federal Prisoners State Prisoners 30 to 34 Years Federal or State Prisoners Federal Prisoners State Prisoners 35 to 39 Years Federal or State Prisoners Federal Prisoners State Prisoners 40 Years or Older Federal or State Prisoners Federal Prisoners State Prisoners Rearrest % Reconviction % Reincarceration % 1,916 N/A 63.2% 84.1% % 42.9% N/A % 35.1% N/A % 3,489 N/A 57.6% 80.3% % 34.9% N/A % 28.2% N/A % 3,966 N/A 50.3% 77.0% % 28.5% N/A % 22.2% N/A % 3,249 N/A 44.5% 78.1% % 24.4% N/A % 19.7% N/A % 7,925 N/A 32.5% 69.2% 17.3% N/A 13.6% N/A N While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest. Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162. SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafi [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/court_rules%3Amd%3A48df787bd279229f. Public record. Not legal advice.