Second Chances Resource Library

The Sentencing Project’s  extensive analysis of the hundreds of thousands of Americans serving 10 or more years behind bars. The report finds that in 2019, over half of the people in U.S. prisons – amounting to more than 770,000 people – were serving sentences of 10 years or longer. That’s a huge jump from 2000, when 587,000 people were serving such sentences.

Other key findings of the report include:

• In 2019, nearly one in five people in U.S. prisons – over 260,000 people – had already served at least 10 years. Back in 2000, just 133,000 people had served 10+ years.
• In 12 jurisdictions, two-thirds or more of the prison population were serving sentences of at least a decade – including Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, and Washington, D.C.
• Racial disparities are stark among those serving longer sentences. In 2019, Black Americans represented 14 percent of the total U.S. population, 33 percent of the total prison population, and 46 percent of the prison population who had already served at least 10 years.

An abundance of criminological evidence shows that criminal careers typically end within about 10 years, after which recidivism rates fall measurably.

Drawing on this research, the report makes a case for pragmatic and humane reforms, including giving incarcerated people the chance to have their sentence re-evaluated within 10 years. Importantly, this does not mean every person would be resentenced; it simply means people would have the opportunity to make their case before a court. In line with this reasoning, the American Bar Association – the largest voluntary association of lawyers in the world – has passed a resolution recommending that people receive precisely such resentencing opportunities.

Extreme sentences are so common in America that 10 years behind bars can seem like a relatively short imprisonment. But it’s an incredibly long period of time – one in which people can experience profound change. After a decade of imprisonment, many incarcerated people mature, take accountability for their actions, and acquire skills to support their successful re-entry. Unfortunately, people with excessive sentences are rarely given an opportunity to show how they have changed and have their sentences re-evaluated. That’s a major flaw in our legal system.

Here’s how and why on how I have become an advocate for my ex-husband, incarcerated in federal prison. Yes, you read that right: ex-husband. We are still close, and I can’t sit by and watch injustice. The more I ponder on it, the more I think how can I not advocate for a man who is terminally ill and has been sent to prison?!

[UPDATE: Gary Kyles was granted a pardon from Gov. Wolf in July 2022. He is now free.] Gary Kyles has spent his entire adult life incarcerated. Arrested at 18, sentenced to life without the possibility of parole at 20. He is now 60, and has shown himself to be a very different person than he was 42 years ago, worthy of a second chance.

In 2016, the Council of the District of Columbia (DC Council) passed the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act (IRAA), under which a person who has served 15 years or more in prison for an offense committed before their 18th birthday can petition the Superior Court of Washington, DC for consideration of a reduction in their sentence (this was later expanded to people who were under age 25 at the time of the crime).

Providing reentry support for the IRAA population is uniquely challenging. It requires a thorough assessment to determine whether services available in the District are sufficiently aligned with the needs of those returning to the community. To answer this question, it was necessary to hear directly from impacted individuals about the experiences faced by those who have sought or are seeking relief under IRAA to determine the gaps in supports and services and the challenges faced by IRAA returning citizens. We also spoke with reentry providers and other critical stakeholders in the District. Based on these conversations, we outline key recommendations for the DC Council, the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO), the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the DC Jail, business leaders, social service agencies, and community partners.

In 2012, when the U.S. Supreme Court abolished mandatory sentences of life without parole for persons who committed homicide offenses as juveniles, over 2,000 individuals across the United States were serving the sentence. To date, more than 800 juvenile lifers have been released. To better understand the experiences and needs of this population, we surveyed 112 Philadelphia-based juvenile lifers about their early-life experiences, the periods of their incarceration, and their release and reentry experiences. The majority of respondents reported relatively successful reentry experiences as measured by objective indicators such as housing and jobs. Eighty-one percent (n = 91) of respondents had secured stable housing, 75% (n = 84) were employed at least part-time, and 100% (n = 112) had been able to reconnect with 1 or more family members. Respondents rated family connections and support as critical to their successful reentry, and for most respondents (89%, n = 100) expectations of family support was well calibrated with actual support. Factors associated with perceived challenges to reentry included the number of adverse childhood events to which a respondent was exposed, age (with greater difficulties reported by respondents younger than 44 & older than 55, compared to others), physical and mental health, and the extent to which actual family support was consistent with expectations. We discuss the policy implications of our findings in light of continued trends toward decarceration in the United States and the potential that parole grants for persons serving long sentences for violent crimes may continue to increase.

Ernest Boykin was 41, not halfway through a 15-year sentence in federal prison, and COVID had been hitting prisons hard for months. He had underlying medical conditions that put him at high risk if he contracted the disease, and on lockdown, conditions inside deteriorated by the day. He applied to the warden for compassionate release and was denied. Despair would have been easy.

Even after 25 years of prison food, Lynn Reece hasn’t forgotten how to cook. Before he got in trouble, he ran a successful restaurant in Houston, The Real Meal. “It was home-cooked dishes. Everything that your mom’s going to prepare for you. Meat loaf, pot roast, chicken and dumplings, fried chicken. All from scratch. Homemade. And the little place got popular.” Business was so good that he expanded into catering.

Too many people in Arizona are serving long prison terms that don’t make communities safer. There are plenty of people locked up who do not pose a risk to public safety yet languish in prison for decades, some of them seriously ill, like Allissia Henz. Arizona should give people like Allissia and her family a real chance for relief.

In this case, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the state Compassionate Release Statute does not require that an inmate prove that he is unable to perform any activity of basic daily living in order to establish a “permanent physical incapacity.” Rather, the statute requires clear and convincing evidence that the inmate’s condition renders him permanently unable to perform two or more activities of basic daily living, necessitating twenty-four-hour care.

This brief explains how the First Step Act’s compassionate release reform and the absence of a quorum at the U.S. Sentencing Commission made it possible for judges to decide what factors constitute “compelling and extraordinary circumstances” for purposes of granting compassionate relief. Hundreds of people serving extreme sentences have been granted early release as a result – six of whom are profiled in this issue brief – but this discretion could disappear if the U.S. Sentencing Commission doesn’t incorporate the First Step Act reforms the right way when they reconvene.