Parole Sentences Research Articles

Public Perceptions of Juvenile Life Without Parole and Alternative Sentences: A Michigan Based Sample

Since the Supreme Court ruling in Miller banning mandatory juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) sentences, many states have gone one step further and completely eliminated JLWOP sentences. However, this trend has stagnated. One potential reason is society’s “tough on crime” framework, which legislators are hesitant to deviate from. To understand public opinion on adolescent adolescent development and sentencing of youth, we surveyed residents in one state considering legislation that would ban JLWOP and similar sentences, Michigan. Most participants had sufficient understanding of adolescent development and viewed adolescents as having the capacity for change. Additionally, most participants supported alternative sentences to JLWOP, with support primarily given to sentences that were rehabilitative in nature. Our results can help policymakers better understand their constituents’ beliefs regarding adolescent sentencing, which can inform policy decisions.

Prosecutor Decision-Making Following Juvenile Life Without Parole Sentencing Reform

Prosecutors play an integral role in implementing sentencing reform measures in the United States. Following the Supreme Court’s recent restrictions of the use of life without parole sentences for juveniles (JLWOP), county prosecutors in Michigan were tasked with initiating resentencing proceedings by filing sentencing motions for individuals who were currently serving JLWOP (so-called “juvenile lifers”). These motions intimated whether, following the changes in sentencing policy, the prosecutor sought a new life without parole sentence or if they consented to the default term-of-years sentence that would allow a juvenile lifer an opportunity for release. In this paper, we analyze the best-fitting characteristics predicting prosecutor filing decisions. Guided by the focal concerns framework, we ultimately find evidence that prosecutors made filing decisions in ways that were consistent with their existing decision-making schema, relying on characteristics that aligned with typical conceptions of blameworthiness and dangerousness. Prosecutors’ decisions were not associated with characteristics reflecting the new guidance or mitigative logics provided by Supreme Court’s rulings, such as age and immaturity. We conclude that prosecutors’ implementation of sentencing reform measures is constrained by the extent that new policy parameters overlap with existing focal concerns and provide several policy recommendations for addressing this issue.

Evaluating the Effectiveness of Life Without Parole as an Alternative to the Death Penalty

Death penalty in the United States has been steadily replaced by life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) sentences since 2001. As of July 2021, the number of people on death row imprisoned in state, federal, or military prisons was down to a thirty-year low, which translated to a 33% decrease since its peak in July 2001. On the other hand, the number of people serving LWOP increased by 66% since 2003. This paper reviews current academic literature to compare the pros and cons of LWOP and death penalty from financial and psychological points of view in response to the question of whether LWOP is a more effective alternative to the death penalty in the United States. From a total cost perspective, LWOP is less costly to execute than that of a death sentence. Psychologically speaking, LWOP may be more satisfactory for both families of the victims and defendants. However, while LWOP has been regarded by many as more humane, its effectiveness has been degraded by harsh policies in the 1980s and 1990, which have resulted in prison overcrowding and the United States having the highest prison incarnation rate in the world. In addition, diminishing rights is a common issue experienced by LWOP prisoners. Therefore, the author concludes that while LWOP has strengths over the death penalty, its ultimate effectiveness remains in question.

397 Factors needing attention to implement effective drug treatment in community correctional in Puerto Rico

OBJECTIVES/GOALS: The complex health profile of those supervised by community corrections places them at a greater risk of morbidity and mortality from social disruption, infection, and of substance misuse, relapse, and overdose. This study aims to explore individual and social determinants of SUD and treatment utilization for this population. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: A secondary data analysis was conducted using an administrative database from the Department of Corrections of Puerto Rico (DoC-PR) that included individuals under community supervision between 2015 and 2018 (N=13,163). Two logistic regression analysis were performed to predict SUD and SUD treatment utilization. The predictors included in the models were: a) age, b) gender, c) civil status, d) education level, e) employment status, f) income, g) number of dependents, h) housing zone, I) type of crime, j) offender classification k) community sentence classification, and k) sentence duration. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: A total of 4,531 cases (34.4%) were identified with an SUD and of these 79.2% were enrolled in treatment. Significant predictors of SUD included a parole sentence (vs probation), commission of felony, decreasing sentence duration and recidivism. Significant demographic variables include, male, single, younger age, unemployed, residing in an urban zone and decreasing income. Significant predictors for SUD treatment utilization were a probation sentence, older age and residing in a rural zone. Mandated treatment may explain a higher likelihood of treatment utilization, yet prevalent modalities consist of residential abstinence based, non-professionalized services known to have poor treatment outcomes. The current data set does not include follow up data to assess changes in treatment utilization. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE: We should aim to prevent health and social disparities and risk of sentence revocation associated with interventions that lack evidence to support their effectiveness. Next steps should address challenges and opportunities for the adoption of EBPPs for individuals with an SUD under community corrections supervision.

The price of a sex offense conviction: A comparative analysis of the costs of community supervision

AbstractMonetary sanctions can expand the scope and depth of punishment. Most research on monetary sanctions has centered on fines and fees assessed by the court, but they are also routinely imposed as part of the probation and parole sentence. In this article, we draw on in‐depth interview data from a sample of individuals under correctional supervision to document the often hidden costs of correctional control. We further consider a subsample of participants convicted of sexual offenses to illustrate the unique way that monetary sanctions are levied on groups of people who are considered more morally culpable and worthy of carceral control. We find that monetary sanctions are regularly assessed and challenging for most participants. The stigma of a sexual offense conviction and economic precarity, particularly among Black members of the sample, further the costs of punishment. We contend that costs associated with a sexual offense are unique because they can continue in perpetuity, govern normative behavior, and are centered on an assumption of continued guilt. We argue that the monetary sanctions levied against convicted persons, especially individuals with sexual offenses, demonstrate the often hidden and expansive nature of carceral control for other marginalized groups.

Life lessons: Examining sources of racial and ethnic disparity in federal life without parole sentences*

AbstractAlongside capital punishment, sentences to life without the possibility of parole are one of the most distinctive aspects of the American system of criminal punishment. Unlike the death penalty, though, almost no empirical work has examined the decision to impose life imprisonment. The current study analyzes several years of recent federal sentencing data (FY2010–FY2017) to investigate underlying sources of racial disparity in life without parole sentences. The analysis reveals disparities in who receives life imprisonment, but it finds these differences are attributable mostly to indirect mechanisms built into the federal sentencing system, such as the mode of conviction, mandatory minimums, and guidelines departures. Both Black and Hispanic offenders are more likely to be eligible for life sentences under the federal guidelines, but conditional on being eligible, they are not more likely to receive life sentences. Findings are discussed in relation to ongoing debates over racial inequality and the growing role that life imprisonment plays in American exceptionalism in punishment.

The Intersection of Wrongful Convictions and Gender in Cases Where Women Were Sentenced to Death or Life in Prison Without Parole

This Note examines National Registry of Exonerations data and discusses the prevalence of false confessions and presence of a child victim in cases of women who were convicted of murder, received a serious sentence, and were later exonerated. After looking at the cases of women exonerated after receiving death sentences or life without parole sentences in light of the prevalence of these factors, this Note argues that examination of the cases reveals that the presence of a false confession or a child victim may have contributed to some of the wrongful convictions where these factors may have led to the women being viewed as having failed to conform to society’s expectations for women. This Note then discusses why evidence that portrayed the women as having violated society’s expectations could not have been excluded at trial and why exclusion in future cases through the rules of evidence or new legislation is challenging. This Note concludes by arguing that an awareness of how gender can contribute to wrongful convictions or the imposition of harsher sentences can help attorneys and judges guard against gender affecting the outcomes of criminal proceedings.

Long Road to Nowhere: How Southern States Struggle with Long-Term Incarceration

The Deep South is the epicenter of mass incarceration. The United States incarcerates more people per capita than any other country, with prison populations growing by 86% between 1990 and 2019. For Southern states, prison populations exploded by 127% during that same period. During this time in history, America implemented “tough on crime” policies that responded to public health issues like the drug epidemic with incarceration instead of rehabilitation. Laws for even nonviolent crimes became more punitive with longer sentences, and people of color were disproportionately pushed into prisons with little hope for parole. Today, incarceration rates for Latinx and Black people are more than two and five times the incarceration rate of whites, respectively. The commitment to the “tough on crime” narrative led to significantly overcrowded prisons, which not only put a strain on state budgets, but also created human rights challenges regarding how to maintain a safe and healthy prison environment. Three Southern states in particular — Alabama, Florida, and Louisiana — exemplify how prison populations have grown to be problematic in three unique ways. Alabama is home to the most overcrowded prisons in the country, currently at 151% of capacity. Even after sentencing reforms were passed in 2017, recent legislation concerning the Alabama Board of Pardons and Paroles has severely diminished the parole chances of currently incarcerated people. Florida, with over 95,000 imprisoned people, has the third-largest prison population of any state in the country, and still adheres to a “Truth in Sentencing” rule requiring incarcerated people to serve at least 85% of their sentences, regardless of any demonstration of rehabilitation. As a result, Florida has grown to have the oldest prison population in the South, a group whose care is increasingly expensive. Louisiana has been known as the “incarceration capital of the world” for consistently having incredibly high incarceration rates. A large factor is the number of people serving life sentences without the possibility of parole, including juveniles. The lack of early prison release is just one of many contributors to mass incarceration in the South. The solutions also vary — from expanding parole eligibility and making it retroactive, to increasing incentives for rehabilitation credits, to re-calibrating triggers for life without parole sentences. This report will investigate the impact that over-incarceration has had in three Southern states, and provide recommendations on how each state can address the issue through policy change.

Reimagining probation and parole for young adults in the United States

The aim of this article is to propose an overhaul in how young adults (approximately aged 15–25 years) should be supervised in the community while serving probation or parole sentences. Using a pilot model implemented in the Pacific Northwest in the United States, we describe the development of a new specialized caseload focused on the developmental needs of this age group. Once established, an ambitious training program using external subject matter experts was used to educate supervising officers and integrate best practices across four emerging areas in the literature: trauma informed care, brain development science, an Equity and Empowerment Lens with a racial justice focus, and the case management approach Effective Practices in Community Supervision. Results show the potential of this approach to change the trajectory of the life course of participants, as well as promote systematic and systemic reform in the participating jurisdiction.

The Unusual Cruelty of Nursing Homes Behind Bars

The elderly prison population continues to rise along with higher rates of dementia behind bars. To maintain the detention of this elderly population, federal and state prisons are creating long-term care units, which in turn carry a heavy financial burden. Prisons are thus gearing up to become nursing homes, but without the proper trained staff and adequate financial support. The costs both to taxpayers and to human dignity are only now becoming clear. This article squarely addresses the second dimension of this carceral practice, that is the cost to human dignity. Namely, it sets out why indefinitely incarcerating someone with dementia or other neurocognitive disorders violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. This conclusion derives from the confluence of two lines of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. First, in Madison v. Alabama, the Court recently held that executing someone (in Madison’s case someone with dementia) who cannot rationally understand their sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Second, in line with Miller v. Alabama, which puts life without parole (LWOP) sentences in the same class as death sentences due to their irrevocability, this holding should be extended to LWOP sentences. Put another way, this article explains why being condemned to life is equivalent to death for someone whose neurodegenerative disease is so severe that they cannot rationally understand their punishment.

The Unusual Cruelty of Nursing Homes Behind Bars

The elderly prison population continues to rise along with higher rates of dementia behind bars. To maintain the detention of this elderly population, federal and state prisons are creating long-term care units, which in turn carry a heavy financial burden. Prisons are thus gearing up to become nursing homes, but without the proper trained staff and adequate financial support. The costs both to taxpayers and to human dignity are only now becoming clear. This article squarely addresses the second dimension of this carceral practice, that is the cost to human dignity. Namely, it sets out why indefinitely incarcerating someone with dementia or other neurocognitive disorders violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. This conclusion derives from the confluence of two lines of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. First, in Madison v. Alabama, the Court recently held that executing someone (in Madison’s case someone with dementia) who cannot rationally understand their sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. Second, in line with Miller v. Alabama, which puts life without parole (LWOP) sentences in the same class as death sentences due to their irrevocability, this holding should be extended to LWOP sentences. Put another way, this article explains why being condemned to life is equivalent to death for someone whose neurodegenerative disease is so severe that they cannot rationally understand their punishment.

Miller v. Alabama and the Problem of Prediction

Beginning in 2010, the Supreme Court severely limited states’ ability to impose juvenile life without parole sentences. In a seminal case, Miller v. Alabama, the Court banned mandatory life without the possibility of parole sentences for juveniles and declared that only those juveniles that are “irreparably corrupt” should be made to spend the rest of their lives in prison. While Miller has been the subject of much scholarly debate, there has yet to be any discussion of a core instability at the center of Miller’s mandate: By limiting life without parole sentences only to those juveniles who are “irreparably corrupt” the Court is asking sentencers to predict whether a juvenile will be a danger decades down the road and after a long prison sentence. This Note uses legal and social science literature around the impossibility of long-term predictions about juvenile development to argue that the requirement of prediction in Miller prevents just application of the decision and argues that this instability should lead to a ban on juvenile life without parole sentences.

A Stone of Hope: Legal and Empirical Analysis of Juvenile Lifer Parole Decisions

In a recent line of cases, the Supreme Court has held that sentencing juveniles to life in prison without the possibility of release on parole violates the Eighth Amendment in all but the most rare cases. In response, many states have extended the possibility of release on parole to individuals serving juvenile life sentences. Whether the possibility of parole can render juvenile life sentences constitutional is a topic of ongoing debate among courts, litigants, and scholars. Thus far, that debate has not engaged with one of the most longstanding critiques of parole systems: that parole-release decisions are arbitrary and capricious. This article develops this critique within existing Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, arguing that the principles used to determine whether death penalty decisions are arbitrary and capricious ought to apply analogously to parole-release decisions among individuals serving life with the possibility of parole sentences for juvenile convictions (“juvenile lifers”). The article then applies this Eighth Amendment analysis to an original empirical study of 426 parole decisions among juvenile lifers in California. The study provides evidence that parole decisions are as arbitrary and capricious with respect to a measure of rehabilitation as death penalty decisions were to a measure of culpability when the Supreme Court struck the death penalty as arbitrary and capricious in 1972. The article concludes by proposing an alternative structure for parole-release decisions among juvenile lifers. The proposal calls for a bifurcated process in which release would be mandatory if a parole candidate has met objectively measurable criteria, and release would be discretionary if a parole candidate has not met these criteria.

Against Life Without Parole

Over 40,000 people in the United States today are serving life without parole sentences (LWOP) — more than triple the number in 1992. This figure understates the case, since parole has become increasingly rare for the 140,000 prisoners serving life sentences that ostensibly permit parole. I argue that LWOP sentences should be abolished. After reviewing the facts about LWOP, I show that of the standard reasons for punishment only retributivism can hope to justify it. I investigate the varieties of retributivism and argue that plausible versions do not entail or even recommend it. So, we can reject LWOP without abandoning retributivism — an important point, strategically and perhaps morally as well. I then make the positive case for abolition, on three main grounds. First, few (if any) people are fully culpable for their criminal acts; we should mitigate their punishment accordingly. Second, abolishing life without parole — and indeed all life sentences — is likely to bring many benefits: to prisoners, their loved ones, the community in general, and to those who decide for abolition and who carry it out. Among these is the promotion of certain attitudes it is good for people to have, including faith in humanity. Finally, there’s a certain pointlessness in continuing to punish a person who has undergone changes of character that distance them greatly from the person who committed the crime many decades earlier.

Communication Style as an Antecedent to Reactance, Self-Efficacy, and Restoration of Freedom for Drug- and Alcohol-Involved Women on Probation and Parole

This study extends research on psychological reactance theory by examining probation and parole officer (PO) communication style as an antecedent to female offenders’ reactance and 2 indicators of subsequent drug and alcohol abuse while serving probation or parole sentences. Structural equation modeling was conducted to test a mediational path model, the results of which demonstrated that perceptions of PO conversational communication style were negatively associated with reactance but positively associated with self-efficacy to avoid drugs and alcohol. Conversely, women who perceived their POs as having a conformity communication style were more likely to report higher levels of reactance and lower self-efficacy to avoid drugs and alcohol. Psychological reactance led to desire to restore freedom, whereas self-efficacy to avoid drugs and alcohol did not. Desire to restore freedom was linked with reports of using drugs and alcohol and violations of parole or probation for using drugs and alcohol. These findings highlight the importance of communication style as an antecedent to reactance and in the relationship between POs and offenders.

Murder Most Human: A Case for a Categorical Ban of Life-Without-Parole Sentences for All Juvenile Offenders with Guidelines for Release Decisions for Former Juvenile Life-Without-Parole Cases

The Supreme Court has made clear that there is a categorical ban of mandatory life without parole sentences for all juveniles. This ban of mandatory sentences necessarily includes juveniles convicted of the most heinous murders. However, juveniles convicted of murder can be sentenced to life without parole when the sentence is meted out on an individual basis, with due consideration given to the individuality of the offender and the unique circumstances surrounding the offense. As enunciated in Miller v. Alabama, “sentencing a child to life without parole is excessive for all but ‘the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption’.” Why no categorical ban of life without parole for all juveniles offenders? One impediment to a categorical ban of juvenile life without parole sentences for all juveniles, including juvenile convicted of murder, may be found in the Court’s understanding of the crime of murder and the character of offenders convicted of murder, which I will argue is misguided. A more fluid assessment of murder dynamics, juvenile development, and crime desistance suggest sentence length parameters to guide release decisions for juveniles serving life terms.

Book Review: The forgotten men: Serving a life without parole sentence

Book Review: The forgotten men: Serving a life without parole sentence

The forgotten men: serving a life without parole sentence

Today there are approximately fifty thousand prisoners in American prisons serving life without parole, having been found guilty of crimes ranging from murder and rape to burglary, carjacking, and drug offences. In The Forgotten Men, criminologist Margaret Leigey provides an insightful account of a group of aging inmates imprisoned for at least twenty years, with virtually no chance of release. These men make up one of most marginalized segments of contemporary U.S. prison population. Considered too dangerous for rehabilitation, ignored by prison administrators, and overlooked by courts disinclined to review such sentences, these prisoners grow increasingly cut off from family and outside world. Drawing on in-depth interviews with twenty-five such prisoners, Leigey gives voice to these extremely marginalized inmates and offers a look at how they struggle to cope. She reveals, for instance, that men believe that permanent incarceration is as inhumane as capital punishment, calling life without parole the hard death penalty. Indeed, after serving two decades in prison, some wished that they had received death penalty instead. Leigey also recounts ways in which prisoners attempt to construct meaningful lives inside bleak environment where they will almost certainly live out their lives. Every state in union (except Alaska) has life-without-parole sentencing option, despite its controversial nature and its staggering cost to taxpayer. The Forgotten Men provides a much-needed analysis of policies behind life-without-parole sentencing, arguing that such sentences are overused and lead to serious financial and ethical dilemmas.

Doing “Life”: A Glimpse into the Long-Term Incarceration Experience

“Life means life” is a mantra of elected state officials who would rather spend already-compromised state budgets on increasing the use of imprisonment as a punishing tool rather than being viewed by their constituents as “soft on crime”. As a result of tough-on-crime initiatives, approximately 160,000 out of 2.2 million inmates being held in jails and prisons in the United States are serving life sentences. While surviving imprisonment is a challenge for most individuals, prisoners who serve long sentences—including “life”—have different adaptation mechanisms, and for them, adaptation is a longer, more complex process. Further, while persons serving life sentences include those who present a serious threat to public safety, they also include those for whom the length of sentence is questionable. In particular, life without parole (LWOP) sentences often represent a misuse of limited correctional resources and discount the capacity for personal growth and rehabilitation that comes with the passage of time. The purpose of this article is to explore the “doing life” experiences of a man who has chosen to redirect the focus of his life by transforming himself and helping others.

On the meaning of life: A qualitative interpretive meta synthesis of the lived experience of life without parole

Summary This Qualitative Interpretive Meta Synthesis (QIMS) develops a more complete understanding of the lived experience of serving a Life Without Parole (LWOP) sentence by synthesizing the results of existing qualitative studies focused on this population. The four studies selected for this QIMS contain interviews with 86 male prisoners serving a sentence of LWOP. The current synthesis uses phenomenology and grounded theory as methods to obtain a new understanding from the limited data on this specialized vulnerable population. Findings The conceptual model emerging from this QIMS indicates that prisoners experience the sentence of LWOP with feelings of deep loss which mimic the grief response of the dying patient as described by Kubler-Ross (1969). Upon the initial shock of sentencing and imprisonment, inmates pass through stages of denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and ultimately, acceptance. In order to cope with the harsh reality of life imprisonment, ‘lifers’ find ways to exercise personal choice, keep a positive outlook, and forge meaning from their sufferings. Those who are successful in these tasks discover great resilience. Applications This synthesis suggests that the application of grief and resilience theories may be relevant with prisoners and other similarly marginalized populations coping with extraordinary loss of self. Given the potential of inmates in this study to discover personal resilience and engage in attempts at social reconciliation, policy makers should consider whether a sentence of LWOP shortchanges both inmates and society.