Why efforts to shorten long prison sentences have stalled

This is the Marshall Project's Closing Argument newsletter, a weekly in-depth look at an important criminal justice issue. Want this delivered to your inbox? Subscribe to future newsletters.

When a California law gave Lance Gonzalez the opportunity to shorten his prison sentence by participating in additional rehabilitation programs and educational activities in 2016, he got started right away.

Gonzalez “has invested hundreds of hours in support groups, including victim impact and cognitive behavioral classes,” KQED reported this week. He has taught classes, worked as a mentor and earned seven associate degrees.

His efforts seemed to pay off. Under the law, the Department of Corrections granted Gonzalez enough time credits to move up his first parole hearing from 2028 to 2023. He was paroled on his first attempt – a rare feat.

As Gonzalez was planning his first hours as a free man last spring, a lawsuit pulled the rug out from under him. In May, a judge agreed with the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a conservative nonprofit, that the Department of Corrections did not have the authority to grant parole to people serving life sentences. The state has appealed the ruling.

Meanwhile, a bill that would have allowed some Californians sentenced to life in prison before 1990 to be released on parole failed in the state House on Thursday.

The two stalled efforts in the Golden State are indicative of the tensions felt across the country, as reform efforts to reduce long prison sentences face resistance from victims' rights groups and a resurgence of “tough on crime” policies.

The amount of time people spend in prison generally increased during the 1990s due to the rapid passage of “truth in sentencing” laws. These laws severely limited or even prevented inmates from being eligible for parole during their sentence.

Wisconsin is a typical example of the changes in sentencing in many states. Before 1997, convicts in Wisconsin were eligible for parole after serving 25% of their sentence and were automatically released after serving two-thirds. After 1997, convicts were required to serve 100% of their sentence, plus an additional 25% under probation.

Although the state reduced arrests and prosecutions in the 2000s, there was no “relief valve,” experts told Wisconsin Watch. This caused the incarcerated population to continue to rise even as fewer people were convicted. Currently, the state's prison population is overcrowded by 5,000 people.

A few years after the 1997 penal law was passed, Gawaine Edwards was convicted of murder and armed robbery at age 23. Under the law, Edwards will not be eligible for release from prison for 12 years, when he turns 57. Last week, Edwards told Wisconsin Watch he felt like he was “stuck here, spending all his time dead,” in a prison that offers no legitimate rehabilitation or educational programs.

Truth-in-sentencing laws can also limit prison inmates' ability to access rehabilitation programs. As one incarcerated writer put it in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution this week: “When I ask young prisoners about changing their behavior, they often say, 'Why should I?' Without incentives, they see no reason to change.”

According to a Stateline report published in July, there have been efforts in several states this year to pass “second look” laws – laws that allow courts or parole boards to reevaluate long prison sentences – but most attempts have failed.

One Oklahoma law that bucks this trend is a new law that allows convicted victims of domestic violence to seek resentencing if the abuse was “a substantial factor” in their crime.

More general second-look laws are often opposed by victim advocacy groups, who argue that the bills rob crime victims of closure. A second-look proposal in Virginia led to heated and emotional hearings in the House earlier this year before the bill was postponed until next year.

“The impact is felt every day,” said Michael Gray, whose son was killed while selling a cell phone. “Why do we have a legal system if we're going to bypass these decisions,” he said of the sentences imposed, “and try to get these people out of prison?”

Another law that went into effect in Virginia last month led to the release of more than 800 people from state prisons. The law roughly tripled the number of days prisoners can take off their sentences for good behavior.

In other states, things may be different. In November of this year, voters in Colorado will decide whether people convicted of violent crimes must serve at least 85 percent of their sentence before they can be released on parole or have their sentence reduced for good behavior. Currently, that figure is 75 percent.

And as of August 1, virtually no one convicted in Louisiana is eligible for parole, since legislation passed by the legislature earlier this year. A related new law also limits the ability to earn points for good behavior. Prison policy experts predict the changes will double Louisiana's prison population.