I Cant Win but I ll Lose Over and Over Again and That Makes You My Prisoners

Eight Keys to Mercy:

How to shorten excessive prison sentences

By Jorge Renaud Tweet this
November 2018
Press release
Printable version

Introduction

Later on decades of explosive growth, prison house populations have more often than not flattened. Much of that is due to lawmakers lessening penalties for drug possession or low-level property offenses. While a welcome start, a bolder approach is necessary to truly begin to make a dent in the numbers of individuals who have served and will serve decades backside bars. This approach will take political courage from legislators, judges, and the executive co-operative of state governments.

Approximately 200,000 individuals are in state prisons serving natural life or "virtual" life sentences.¹ And as of year'due south end 2015, one in every half-dozen individuals in a state prison had been there at least for x years.²

Effigy 1 . The number of people spending x years or more than in state prisons about tripled between 1999 and 2015, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Corrections Reporting Programme, 1991-2015: Selected Variables, Year-End Population. (1999 is the earliest year for which these information are available from this dataset.)

These are not merely statistics. These are people, sentenced to unimaginably long sentences in ways that practice little to advance justice, provide deterrence, or offer solace to survivors of violence. The damage done to these individuals because of the fourth dimension they must do in prison cells - as well as to their families and their communities - is incalculable.

People should non spend decades in prison without a meaningful take a chance of release. At that place be vastly underused strategies that policy makers can employ to halt, and meaningfully reverse, our overreliance on incarceration. We present viii of those strategies below.

Understanding long prison terms and mechanisms for release

Also many land prisons agree also many individuals doing too much fourth dimension. The goal of our eight strategies is to bring immediate relief to these individuals, by creating or expanding opportunities for their release. However, to discuss such reforms, we first need to empathize the basic mechanisms by which someone is released from prison. In particular, it's important to have a full general idea of how parole works.

In general, when someone is bedevilled of a felony and sentenced, that person loses their freedom for a menstruation of time. A portion of this flow is typically served in a prison house, and often a portion is served in the customs under supervision, too known as parole.ⁱⁱⁱ When parole boards have discretionary power, they periodically review someone's case to determine if they should be released, beginning on their earliest release date. (One'south earliest release date may be well earlier the end of their punishment, or close to the end of their punishment, depending on state- specific statutes and requirements set by the gauge.⁴)

Figure 2 . This schematic diagram illustrates how a judgement is served, from kickoff to primeval possible release to the sentence's eventual expiration (or maximum term). Where the release decision is fabricated through a discretionary parole process (see sidebar), regular parole hearings present farther opportunities for release. This graphic is not to calibration and the ratios betwixt the parts will vary by state and sentence type. Parole is very often available much later than this graphic implies or non at all.

For case, someone bedevilled of aggravated robbery might be sentenced to a maximum of 30 years in prison, and in most states would exist eligible for release afterward a certain menses of time, let's say 10 years.^eight At that x-year marker, this individual reaches their earliest release date, and the parole board considers their release on parole for the first time. If not released on parole, the parole lath continues to consider release at regular intervals until that person is granted parole or maxes out their sentence.

Our 8 strategies

The eight suggested reforms in this report tin shorten time served in unlike means:

• Several ways to brand people eligible for release on parole sooner.
• One way to arrive more likely that the parole board will approve conditional release on parole.
• Several means to shorten the time that must exist served, regardless of sentencing and parole decisions.
• One simple way to ensure that people are not returned to prison.

Of course, states vary in many ways, most critically in how they construction parole eligibility (see sidebar above), and policymakers reading this report should anticipate tailoring our suggested reforms to their state systems. Each of the reforms laid out in this report could be effective independent of the others. Still, nosotros encourage states to use equally many of the following tools as possible to shorten excessive sentences:

1. Presumptive parole ⤵
2. 2nd-await sentencing ⤵
3. Granting of good time ⤵
4. Universal parole eligibility after 15 years ⤵
5. Retroactive application of sentence reduction reforms⤵
6. Elimination of parole revocations for technical violations ⤵
7. Empathetic release ⤵
8. Exchange ⤵

Presumptive parole

Presumptive parole is a organisation in which incarcerated individuals are released upon first becoming eligible for parole unless the parole lath finds explicit reasons to not release them. This approach flips the current parole approach on its caput, so that release on parole is the expected effect, rather than ane that must be argued for. Under this framework, an incarcerated person who meets certain preset conditions will automatically be released at a predetermined engagement.

Currently, parole boards treat connected confinement as the default and must justify why someone should be released. Logically, parole should only be denied if the board can testify that the individual has exhibited specific behaviors that signal a public safety risk (repeated violent episodes in prison, refusal to participate in programming, aggressive correspondence with the victim, etc). Merely parole lath members - who are virtually exclusively gubernatorial appointees - may lose their jobs for simply considering to release someone sentenced to life,¹⁷ or for releasing someone who unexpectedly goes on to commit another crime.^eighteen As a result, many parole boards and their controlling statutes routinely stray from evidence-based questions nigh rubber (come across sidebar, right).

The subjectivity of the electric current process is powerfully illustrated by the tremendous variations in the rate at which states grant parole at parole hearings, which vary from a loftier of 87% in Nebraska to a low of seven% in Ohio, with many states granting parole to just twenty% to 30% of the individuals who are eligible.

Figure iii . Not all states make their parole grant rates available, but the existing data - collected by the Robina Plant - shows a tremendous variation between states (ofttimes resulting from the differences in state parole systems). In a few states, the information is more complicated for other reasons. Washington Country, for example, eliminated discretionary parole in July 1984, leaving that option merely to individuals who committed crimes before that date. However, Washington'due south Indeterminate Sentence Review Lath says information technology also reviews for release on parole anyone convicted "of sure sex offenses on or after Sept. 1, 2001" along with "persons who committed crimes prior to their 18th birthday and were sentenced as adults." Therefore, it'southward unclear how to study the parole grant rate for Washington.

An effective parole system that wants people to succeed will beginning with the supposition that success is possible. Instead of asking "why" the parole lath should believe in the person coming before them, it should inquire "why not" let that person get, then outline a programme that includes in-prison program participation and post-release community-based programming to help the potential parolee overcome barriers to release.

Changing this presumption would besides create powerful new incentives for the entire arrangement. The Section of Corrections would have an incentive to create meaningful programs, and incarcerated people would have an incentive to enroll and successfully complete them.

An effective presumptive parole system would accept elements like those often institute in Mississippi, New Jersey, Michigan, and Hawai'i:

• Give articulate instructions to incarcerated people on what they demand to practise in order to be released on a specific appointment.
• Give clear instructions to incarcerated people, if they are denied release, on what they need to do to be released at the next hearing.
• Crave re-hearings in no more than than 1 or 2 years.^nineteen
• Provide example managers to help incarcerated people develop a plan to be successful at parole decision fourth dimension.
• Provide transparency to incarcerated people past sharing as much information equally possible about how the parole lath reached its decision.²⁰
• Provide transparency and accountability to the legislative branch by requiring almanac reports on the numbers of, and reasons for, denials of parole, especially denials of individuals whose release has been recommended by guidelines supported by validated risk assessments.

Of form, those iv state models have limitations that other states should be cautious nigh repeating:

• Limiting presumptive parole to only certain offenses or for certain sentences. ²¹
• Allowing parole boards to ready aside official guidelines and deny release for subjective reasons.²²

2d look sentencing

2d-look sentencing provides a legal mechanism for judges to review and modify private sentences. The most effective way to do this is described in the newly revised Model Penal Lawmaking, published by the American Law Institute.²³

The Model Penal Code recommends a procedure by which long sentences are automatically reviewed past a console of retired judges after xv years, with an centre toward possible sentence modification or release, and for subsequent review within 10 years, regardless of the sentence's minimum parole eligibility appointment.²⁴ This proposal as well requires that state Departments of Corrections inform incarcerated people of this review, and provide staff resources to help them prepare for it.

Figure 4 . "2nd look" sentencing gives judges the ability to reconsider long sentences, recognizing that our agreement of but punishment evolves over time, and allowing judges to adjust overly castigating sentences as appropriate.

To be sure, many states may have statutes that allow sentencing judges to reconsider an original sentence, although except for in Maryland,²⁵ this doesn't happen very ofttimes.

The reality is that people and societies change, as practise views about punishment. 2d-look provides the opportunity for judges to weigh the transformation of an incarcerated individual against the perceived retributive benefit to society of 15 years of incarceration.

Second-wait is the simply proposal in this written report in which the judiciary would play a leading role, and that makes it particularly powerful tool in a reformist toolkit because polls show that people trust the judiciary much more than than they trust the legislative or executive branches of government.²⁶

Granting of good time

States can award credit to incarcerated individuals for obeying prison rules or for participating in programs during their incarceration. Commonly chosen things like "good time," "meritorious credit" or something similar, these systems shorten the fourth dimension incarcerated people must serve earlier becoming parole eligible or completing their sentences.

Figure 5 . This schematic of fourth dimension served shows how a good fourth dimension organization tin can make people eligible for release on parole sooner and how information technology can make the ultimate completion of their judgement shorter. Equally this section describes, states vary greatly in how much proficient time they honor and in what circumstances they laurels information technology.

States are unnecessarily frugal in granting proficient time and irrationally quick to revoke it. Expert fourth dimension should exist granted to all incarcerated individuals, regardless of confidence and independent of program participation. Prisons should refrain from revoking accrued good time except for the most serious of offenses, and later five years, whatsoever adept time earned should be vested and immune from forfeiture.

As the name implies, good time is doled out in units of time. Good fourth dimension systems vary between states, equally the National Conference of State Legislatures has previously discussed.²⁷ In some states, the average amount of good fourth dimension granted is negligible (Due north Dakota) or non-existent (Montana and S Dakota.) But in others, administrators are empowered by statute to honour far more than. For example:

• Alabama can award up to 75 days for every 30 days served;
• Nebraska can award six months per year of sentence, and can grant an additional three days per month for clean disciplinary records;
• Oklahoma can honor up to 60 days a month, plus additional credits for various kinds of positive disciplinary records, and a number of one-time grants for various educational or vocational accomplishments.

Procedures will vary by land and incarcerated people may not automatically exist awarded the statutorily authorized maximum. In Texas, for example, the statute authorizes upward to 45 days per 30 served, only the more typical corporeality awarded is thirty, with the full amount reserved for people with non-violent sentences assigned to work exterior the fence or in close proximity to correctional officers.

The most robust expert time systems will:

• Make practiced time eligible to every incarcerated person regardless of conviction, and ensure that every incarcerated person can employ skilful fourth dimension toward initial parole or discharge. (For instance, Rhode Island prohibits individuals convicted of murder, sexual assault, child molestation, or kidnapping a pocket-sized from earning adept time. And while Texas allows all individuals to earn expert time, people with sure convictions are not immune to apply it in the merely two ways allowed - to lessen the fourth dimension they must serve before initial parole eligibility or to shorten their actual time served.)
• Fully fund any programs in which participation tin can result in receiving good fourth dimension. For instance, if drug handling or educational classes brand someone eligible for additional skilful fourth dimension credits, there should not exist a significant waiting list.²⁸
• Avoid the mutual pitfall of restricting valuable rehabilitative programs to just those shut to release and low-risk and justifying those restrictions past pointing to lean budgets. This runs contrary to all-time practices, which say that "targeting loftier-risk offenders for intensive levels of treatment and services has the greatest effect on recidivism, and depression-risk inmates should receive minimal or even no intervention."²⁹
• Grant additional skillful fourth dimension to people who are physically or mentally unable to accept advantage of a program that gives good fourth dimension. Many incarcerated people are mentally or physically incapable of engaging in programs, and anyone in that category should be awarded the maximum offered to those who can engage in programs.
• Permit practiced time to exist forfeited only for serious dominion and police force violations and let forfeited practiced time to be restored. Texas, for case, prohibits the restoration of forfeited proficient time,³⁰ while Alabama allows restoration past the Commissioner of the state Section of Corrections upon the warden'due south recommendation.³¹ Finally, states should not allow ane incident to result in a loss of good-time accrued over years, by vesting earned practiced-time afterward a certain period. Nosotros over again rely on the Model Penal Code, which suggests good-time credits earned over five years be vested and untouchable.

Universal parole eligibility after fifteen years

While many states volition retain the pick of imposing long sentences, their sentencing structures should presume that both individuals and club transform over time. This proposal uses the aforementioned 15-year timeline as proposed by the Model Penal Lawmaking for Second Expect Sentencing discussed above.³²

States will vary in how they structure sentences and how parole eligibility is calculated, merely states should ensure that people are non serving more than 15 years without being considered for parole.

Figure 6 . Schematic graphic showing how states can shorten excessive prison sentences past making all incarcerated people eligible for parole at the 15-year mark.

Retroactive application of sentence reduction reforms

Sentences are determined based on the laws in place at the time the law-breaking was committed. Unfortunately, when sentencing reform is achieved, information technology most e'er applies merely to future convictions. This means people currently incarcerated experience unequal justice and fail to benefit from progressive reform. Our statutes should be kept electric current with our nigh evolved understanding of justice, and our ongoing punishments like incarceration should e'er be consistent with that progress, regardless of when the sentence was originally imposed.³³

For instance, one significant sentencing reform that was non made retroactive was Congress' modifications to the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which created the infamous crack cocaine/powder cocaine disparity that treated possession of small amounts of crack cocaine as equivalent to possession of 100 times as much powder cocaine. Congress recognized that this police force was based on irrational science and resulted in disproportionate arrests for people of color and inverse it in 2010, merely the reform was for new drug crimes only. People sentenced under the old law were forced to go along to serve sentences that were now considered unjust.³⁴

Delaware passed a justice reform packet in 2022 that not only reformed three- strikes laws but allowed those convicted on iii-strikes statutes to employ for a modification of their sentences. Delaware took the common-sense step of making its reforms retroactive, but far too few legislatures practice.

Historically, when sentencing reforms do grant relief to individuals already serving lengthy sentences, information technology is more ofttimes the result of a judicial order. (Courts make their decisions retroactive either by requiring states to alter their laws, or past having the states erect frameworks for incarcerated people to apply for resentencing.)

For example:

• When the U.S. Supreme Court reversed an earlier decision and declared in 1963 that it was unconstitutional to put poor people on trial without get-go appointing them a lawyer, the Supreme Court ignored the State of Florida'south plea to non make the ruling retroactive.³⁵ The Supreme Court did and then knowing that information technology would utilise to many thousands of people serving prison sentences in five southern states, including a substantial portion of Florida'due south prison population.³⁶
• In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Courtroom reversed its before decision and, in Atkins v. Virginia barred the execution of the intellectually disabled — the Court used the term "mentally retarded" — instructing that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against roughshod and unusual punishment should be interpreted in lite of the "evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a mature society."³⁷ The Court did not define "mentally retarded," leaving each state to devise its own standards. Over the adjacent 11 years, at least 83 individuals condemned to die instead had their sentences reduced because of a finding of "mental retardation" stemming from Atkins.³⁸
• The Supreme Court has made other improvements in sentencing retroactive as well, including barring execution for offenses committed before age xviii³⁹ and disallowment mandatory life without parole sentences for offenses committed before age xviii.⁴⁰
• Country courts have too fabricated changes retroactive. For example, in 2012 the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled in Unger v. Maryland that that jury instructions in capital murder convictions prior to 1981 were flawed and ordered new trials for the approximately 130 individuals still incarcerated with life sentences. (Most of those people were released by the state and placed on probation to bang-up success.)

Emptying of parole revocations for technical violations

Parole supervision should focus on strengthening ties betwixt individuals on parole and their communities. Unfortunately, the emphasis is more often on pulling parolees out of the community and returning them to incarceration at the kickoff sign that they are struggling,⁴¹ with parole officers intent on "catching mistakes through surveillance and monitoring, rather than on promoting success via rehabilitation and support."⁴² Parole officers have the power to return people to prison for "technical violations" that represent no threat to public safety and may simply point that a person on parole needs more assistance, or less stringent rules, non more incarceration.

Approximately 60,000 parolees were returned to land prisons in 2022 non because they were bedevilled of a new offense, but because of a "technical violation" such every bit missing a meeting with a parole officer or traveling to another state to visit a relative without permission. (Parole officers in Massachusetts can fifty-fifty re-incarcerate a parolee if they believe the person "is about to" engage in criminal behavior.⁴³) For people who have already served years in prison and worked hard to earn their release, states should make sure that parole officers are supporting their reentry, rather than sending them back.

Parole revocations for technical violations are a trouble in most states, simply 10 states in particular were responsible for a majority of such revocations in 2016:

Figure 7 . These ten states accounted for two-thirds of all returns to incarceration for technical violations of parole weather condition in 2016, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). See an alternating view of how much parole revocations for technical violations cost these states annually. Annotation that Wisconsin is not included in these graphs, considering the state did not written report whatever revocations to BJS; however, it reports 2,923 "revocation only" admissions to prison house in 2022 (and even more in 2017) on its Department of Corrections website.

States should stop putting parolees behind confined for behaviors that, were the individual not on parole, would not warrant prison time. If a parole condition is itself a police violation, it can be dealt with past the criminal justice system. For example, a parole condition common to all states prohibits parolees from possessing firearms. Since states make it a criminal offense to exist a felon in possession of a firearm, traditional criminal justice procedures tin can be brought to bear when a parolee is found with a firearm. All other, non-criminal violations should be addressed through community intervention and should never field of study someone on parole to re-incarceration.

Some states take great care to avoid sending people to prison on technical violations, only other states allow high rates of re-incarceration. In order to increase the likelihood that individuals on parole succeed, and to lighten the load on overwhelmed parole officers, states should adopt suggestions advanced by the Robina Constitute⁴⁴ and Columbia Academy Justice Lab:⁴⁵

• "Front-load" supervision resources immediately later on release, when individuals released from prison are most likely to need back up;
• Tailor conditions to individual parolees instead of using boiler-plate linguistic communication intended to comprehend every possible situation;
• Limit the length of time an individual can be on parole regardless of sentence, and shorten parole terms past granting good-fourth dimension for compliance with weather condition.

Empathetic release

Compassionate release is the release of incarcerated individuals, ordinarily merely not exclusively aged, who are typically facing imminent death, and who pose no threat to the public. This procedure is often lengthy and cumbersome, which is unfortunate given that people recommended for empathetic release are almost ever terminally ill or greatly incapacitated and the complicated nature of this procedure means many dice before their cases are resolved.⁴⁶

All states but Iowa have a framework for compassionate release, but currently few states use compassionate release to a meaningful degree.⁴⁷ The processes vary tremendously, but the basic framework is the aforementioned: An incarcerated person is recommended for release⁴⁸ on compassionate grounds to prison administrators, who then solicit a medical recommendation, and then administrators or members of the parole board approve or deny a conditional release. These programs are plagued by many shortcomings, including:

• Requirements that a person be extremely close to death, or and then incapacitated that they practise not understand why they are being punished.⁴⁹
• Requiring medical professionals to attest that someone is within six months, or nine months, of death. Health professionals are reluctant to give such verbal prognoses, which means prison house officials will default to the "it's safer only to not let this person go."^fifty
• Allowing prison personnel to overrule medical prognoses.⁵¹

To exist sure, some states practise certain facets of compassionate release meliorate than others, simply states would exist wise to implement the recommendations⁵² of the Model Penal Code on empathetic release, forth with FAMM'south excellent suggestions.⁵³ Especially robust compassionate release systems will:

• Exist bachelor to all incarcerated people regardless of the underlying offense.
• Streamline all processes and fix reachable deadlines so that petitioners don't die due to bureaucratic bottlenecks before they are released.
• Limit the ability of prison officials to overrule, on medical grounds, a recommendation of release past medical professionals.

Exchange

Commutations are modifications of a sentence past the executive co-operative to either make someone eligible for release earlier they otherwise would be, or to release them outright. These decisions are commonly fabricated by the governor, or some combination of the governor and a board, whose members are themselves oft appointed past the governor. (For a detailed description of the process and structure in each land encounter The Criminal Justice Policy Foundation's helpful summary.)

The procedures are often very similar, simply the outcomes vary profoundly between the states. Typically, an incarcerated individual submits a petition to the governor'southward office, who reviews the petition or forwards information technology to whatsoever board must make the initial recommendation. At that bespeak, the petition is approved or denied based on whatever criteria that state uses.

At that place is not a comprehensive information source on the numbers of commutations granted beyond the 50 states, but it appears that charity in full general and substitution in particular are used far less than they have been in years past.⁵⁶ Notable contempo exceptions are onetime Illinois Gov. George Ryan (R), who in 2003 commuted the decease sentences of all 167 individuals on death row to either life or a sentence of years, and Mike Huckabee (R), who as Arkansas governor issued 1,058 acts of clemency, many of them commutations and pardons to individuals with violent crimes.

Executives should consider using commutation in a broad, sweeping manner to remedy some of the extremes of the punitive turn that led to mass incarceration. Many executives have the power to shorten the sentences of large numbers of incarcerated individuals or to release them altogether. It volition be tempting for governors to take circumspection from President Barack Obama's methods,⁵⁷ which were bogged down by bureaucratic, structural and political cautiousness. We advise following the unique strategies of President Gerald Ford, who granted clemency to tens of thousands of men for evading the Vietnam State of war.⁵⁸

Decision

If states are serious about reversing mass incarceration, they must be willing to leaven retribution with mercy and address the long sentences imposed during more punitive periods in their state's history. This written report provides country leaders with viii strategies to shorten overly long prison house sentences. All that is left is the political volition.

Almost the Prison Policy Initiative

The non-turn a profit, non-partisan Prison Policy Initiative was founded in 2001 to expose the broader harm of mass criminalization and spark advocacy campaigns to create a more than merely society. The organization is known for its visual breakdown of mass incarceration in the U.S., likewise as its information-rich analyses of how states vary in their utilise of punishment. The Prison Policy Initiative's research is designed to reshape debates around mass incarceration by offering the "big picture" view of critical policy issues, such equally probation and parole, pretrial detention, and reentry outcomes.

About the writer

Jorge Renaud is a Senior Policy Analyst at the Prison Policy Initiative. He holds a Masters in Social Work from the University of Texas at Austin. His work and enquiry is forever informed by the decades he spent in Texas prisons and his years every bit a community organizer in Texas, working with those almost affected by incarceration.

Acknowledgements

This report would non have been possible without the expertise and input of many individuals. Laurie Jo Reynolds, Shaena Fazal, and Nora Demleitner offered crucial looks at parole systems during early drafts; and Alex Friedmann, Bernadette Rabuy, Eric Lotke, Janice Thompson, and Lois Ahrens all gave invaluable feedback. I am peculiarly indebted to Margaret Love for her work on commutations and pardons, Patricia Garin for providing leads on academic articles, to John Cooper of Rubber and But Michigan for keeping me updated about criminal justice reforms in that land, to Families Against Mandatory Minimums for their excellent work on compassionate release, and to Edward East. Rhine of the Robina Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, both for his scholarship at that place and for taking time to provide clarity about parole in all 50 states. Special thanks to Peter Wagner for offering much-needed clarity and shaping, to Wanda Bertram for editing, to Wendy Sawyer for visionary graphics, and to the rest of my colleagues at the Prison Policy Initiative.

Appendix

States vary widely in their use of long sentences, their release systems, and their appetites for reform. For land advocates, journalists and policymakers looking for more individualized data, nosotros have compiled fact sheets for all 50 states. Run into your state:

Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia

Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland

Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey

New United mexican states New York N Carolina Northward Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Isle S Carolina

Southward Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Vermont Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming

• Alabama
• Alaska
• Arizona
• Arkansas
• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• Florida
• Georgia
• Hawaii
• Idaho
• Illinois
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Kentucky
• Louisiana
• Maine
• Maryland
• Massachusetts
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Mississippi
• Missouri
• Montana
• Nebraska
• Nevada
• New Hampshire
• New Jersey
• New Mexico
• New York
• North Carolina
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• Oklahoma
• Oregon
• Pennsylvania
• Rhode Isle
• S Carolina
• South Dakota
• Tennessee
• Texas
• Utah
• Virginia
• Vermont
• Washington
• West Virginia
• Wisconsin
• Wyoming

Table 1. The tabular array below provides the data behind virtually of the graphics in this report and the fact sheets above. In some places in the report or fact sheets, we have selected a common reference signal that allows united states to compare all 50 states (for example, 2005 as a starting point when measuring change over fourth dimension). However, many states have data beginning at earlier or later on points in the aforementioned information sources; this table includes the earliest available information for each state rather than the mutual reference points used elsewhere to compare states.

State	Full individuals with at least x years in prison house, 2015	Percent change, total individuals with at least 10 years in prison from Year Began* appointment through 2015	Year Began	Per centum of total state prison population who were individuals with at least 10 years in prison house, 2015	Pct change, percent of total land prison population who were individuals with at least 10 years in prison from Yr Began* through 2015	Total parole population, 2016	Full returns to incarceration, 2016	Number of individuals returned to prison for technical violations, no new criminal offense, 2016	Percentage of all returns to prison that were technical violations, no new criminal offence, 2016	Does the state's parole board determine release date?	Percentage of individuals who were eligible for parole whose release was granted in 2014.
Alabama	four,853	39%	2007	18%	5%	viii,150	473	58	12%	Yes	34%
Alaska	331	-3%	2002	ix%	-5%	two,100	559	369	66%	Yeah	forty%
Arizona	3,516	161%	2000	8%	2%	7,379	2,488	2,472	99%	Non since 1994	11%
Arkansas	2,510	129%	2001	16%	xi%	22,910	half dozen,003	five,741	96%	Yes	67%
California	33,629	75%	1999	26%	xiv%	86,053				Not since 1977	xviii%
Colorado	2,599	116%	2000	13%	6%	9,953	3,226	2,397	74%	Yes	26%
Connecticut	1,506	103%	2000	14%	viii%	2,939	878	0	0%	Yes	67%
Delaware	727	57%	2009	xiv%	v%	425	8	vi	75%	Non since 1990	n/a
Florida	17,444	172%	1999	18%	8%	4,611	1,101	764	69%	Non since 1983	0%
Georgia	8,667	186%	1999	17%	nine%	24,413	2,561	22	one%	Yes	56%
Hawaii			northward/a		0%	1,479	336	336	100%	Yes	32%
Idaho	617	27%	2010	ix%	2%	iv,875	379		0	Yes	68%
Illinois	half-dozen,506	122%	1999	xiv%	7%	29,629	8,340	six,570	79%	Not since 1978	0%
Indiana	3,183	87%	2002	12%	four%	ix,420	2,374	ane,985	84%	Non since 1977	northward/a
Iowa	1,089	-36%	2001	12%	-xi%	5,901	1,502	789	53%	Yep	51%
Kansas	1,349	7%	2011	14%	0%	4,331	162	0	0%	Not since 1993	29%
Kentucky	1,770	108%	2000	viii%	3%	16,536	six,210	2,093	34%	Yes	52%
Louisiana	6,915	74%	2002	xx%	5%	31,187	iv,067	i,232	30%	Yes	42%
Maine	177	-1%	2012	eight%	-i%	21	1	0	0%	Not since 1976	n/a
Maryland	four,010	27%	2000	20%	7%	10,887	1,009	516	51%	Yes	40%
Massachusetts	1,761	8%	2009	19%	4%	one,995	490	408	83%	Yes	63%
Michigan	9,656	60%	1999	19%	half dozen%					Yes	68%
Minnesota	805	223%	2000	8%	iv%	6,810	3,182	2,883	91%	Not since 1982	n/a
Mississippi	2,965	216%	2000	16%	10%	viii,424	ii,013	0	0%	Yep	n/a
Missouri	4,500	95%	2000	14%	6%	17,657	6,613	3,439	52%	Yes	n/a
Montana	294	16%	2010	sixteen%	6%	i,092	228	206	xc%	Yeah	25%
Nebraska	581	68%	2000	eleven%	2%	one,050	429	416	97%	Aye	87%
Nevada	1,875	35%	2008	14%	3%	5,507	ane,219	525	43%	Yes	56%
New Hampshire	301	8%	2011	xi%	0%	2,451	797	797	100%	Yes	80%
New Jersey	three,058	44%	2000	14%	seven%	xv,180	one,485	1,387	93%	Yep	33%
New Mexico	743	65%	2010	10%	iv%	2,763	1,644	1,172	71%	Not since 1979	north/a
New York	8,812	52%	1999	17%	nine%	44,562	9,736	half-dozen,362	65%	Yep	n/a
North Carolina	6,025	107%	2000	17%	7%	11,744	1,328	397	30%	Not since 1994	n/a
Due north Dakota	75	142%	2002	four%	2%	634	311	239	77%	Yep	n/a
Ohio	viii,007	49%	1999	15%	3%	18,284	i,722	127	7%	Not since 1996	7%
Oklahoma	3,989	36%	2000	14%	i%	2,116	24	10	42%	Yes	n/a
Oregon	ane,718	87%	2001	12%	4%	24,077	2,906	2,041	70%	Not since 1989	n/a
Pennsylvania	7,856	108%	1999	16%	v%	112,351	11,595	5302	46%	Yeah	58%
Rhode Island	262	114%	2000	x%	three%	441	49	41	84%	Yeah	n/a
S Carolina	4,191	135%	2000	20%	11%	four,963	244	212	87%	Yes	northward/a
South Dakota	425	7%	2013	12%	1%	2,673	834	583	70%	Yes	n/a
Tennessee	4,712	120%	2000	15%	6%	13,063	1,591	704	44%	Yes	due north/a
Texas	23,233	37%	1999	15%	three%	111,892	7,142	1,273	18%	Yes	36%
Utah	436	100%	2000	7%	3%	3,502	1,821	i,547	85%	Yes	n/a
Vermont	twenty	185%	2003	1%	-three%	1,083				Yes	n/a
Virginia	7,489	16%	2009	21%	2%	1,576	140	35	25%	Not since 1995	northward/a
Washington	2,474	148%	2000	14%	7%	11,131	1,728	760	44%	Not sinc 1994	42%
Due west Virginia	936	47%	2006	15%	4%	3,123	330	272	82%	Yep	36%
Wisconsin	3,610	315%	2000	16%	12%	20,241	5,424	3,280	lx%	Not since 2000	n/a
Wyoming	234	25%	2006	10%	1%	783	160	133	83%	Yes	63%
Hateful		86%							57%		42%

Total individuals with at least 10 years in prison house, 2015

Number of individuals in a land prison house for at least x years at the end of 2015. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Corrections Reporting Program, 1991-2015: Selected Variables, Year-End Population. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2018-03-02

Percent change, full individuals with at least 10 years in prison from Yr Began* appointment through 2015

Alter in the number of individuals held in a country prison for at least 10 years, kickoff in 2005 through the terminate of 2015. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Corrections Reporting Program, 1991-2015: Selected Variables, Year-End Population. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2018-03-02

Year Began

The year that each state in chart began collecting data as to the number of individuals who had served at least x years in prison house. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Corrections Reporting Program, 1991-2015: Selected Variables, Year-End Population. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-academy Consortium for Political and Social Enquiry [distributor], 2018-03-02

Pct of full land prison population who were individuals with at to the lowest degree 10 years in prison house, 2015

Individuals with at least 10 years in prison as a percent of the entire state prison house population at the end of 2015. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics. National Corrections Reporting Program, 1991-2015: Selected Variables, Year-End Population. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Enquiry [distributor], 2018-03-02

Percent change, percent of full land prison population who were individuals with at to the lowest degree 10 years in prison from Year Began* through 2015

Percent change of individuals with at least 10 years in prison as a percentage of the entire state prison population, as compared with that aforementioned population when that state began collecting that data. Source: Agency of Justice Statistics. National Corrections Reporting Program, 1991-2015: Selected Variables, Year-Stop Population. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Inquiry [distributor], 2018-03-02

Total parole population, 2016

The number of adults on parole in a given country on Jan. one, 2016. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2016, Appendix Tabular array 5.

Total returns to incarceration, 2016

The number of individuals who were on parole in a given land and returned to prison for ane) a new criminal offence, 2) a revocation of parole on a technical violation, no new offense; 3) for treatment, and 4) unknown/other. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole in the U.s.a., 2016, Appendix Table seven.

Number of individuals returned to prison for technical violations, no new offense, 2016

The number of individuals a state returned to prison house for a violation of weather condition of parole without convicting them of a new, separate offense. Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2016, Appendix Table seven.

Percent of all returns to prison house that were technical violations, no new offense, 2016

The individuals that a state returned to prison for a violation of conditions of parole as a percentage of all individuals on parole who were returned to prison. Source: Agency of Justice Statistics, Probation and Parole in the United States, 2016.

Does the state's parole board determine release engagement?

Whether or non a country has statutorily washed abroad with indeterminate sentencing and does not take a parole board with the power to grant discretionary parole. Source: E. Due east. Rhine, A. Watts, and 1000. R. Reitz. (2018) "Parole Boards within Indeterminate and Determinate Sentencing Structures." Robina Plant of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice. University of Minnesota.

Percentage of individuals who were eligible for parole whose release was granted in 2014.

The number of individuals who were granted release by a country's parole lath as a per centum of the number of incarcerated individuals in that country who were eligible for parole and reviewed for parole. Source: Mariel Eastward. Alper. (2016) "By the Numbers: Parole Release and Revocation Across 50 States." Robina Found of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice. University of Minnesota.

lanhamfroubt.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/longsentences.html

Share this post