Part I of this comment discusses the Supreme Court cases that led to the passage of the Realignment Act, along with a review of some of the major reform changes. Part I also highlights the gaps in creating a fair and consistent process across counties for managing the effects of Realignment. Part II discusses split sentencing and some of the issues it was designed to address as well as investigating how judges have reacted to and used split sentencing. Part III introduces the RNR (Risk Needs Responsivity) model of risk assessments and argues why it should be a mandatory aspect in split sentencing procedures. Part IV shows how recidivism and incarceration rates have changed in San Francisco County as a result of incorporating RNR assessments into judicial split sentencing decisions.
Integrating Evidence-Based Practices into Judicial Sentencing in the Wake of Realignment’s Split Sentencing, 48 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 207