Second Chances Resource Library

In 2020, The Sentencing Project obtained official corrections data from all states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons to produce their 5th national census on life imprisonment. Key findings include: One in 7 people in U.S. prisons is serving a life sentence or virtual life (50 years or more); 30% of lifers are 55 years or older; and more than two-thirds of those serving life sentences are people of color.

This article reviews existing studies looking at recidivism among people convicted of violent crimes and offers new empirical analysis. Most notably, the synthesis of the available evidence suggests that released violent offenders, especially homicide offenders who are older at release, have lower overall recidivism rates relative to other released offenders.

This bill, which was not enacted, would have allowed people who have spent at least 10 years in federal prison to petition a court to take a “second look” at their sentence.

This provision is part of the Proposed Final Draft of Model Penal Code: Sentencing, which was approved at the 2017 Annual Meeting. It creates a “second-look” process for sentence modification available to prisoners who have served exceptionally long terms. After 15 years of continuous confinement, prisoners are given the right to apply to a judicial panel or other judicial decisionmaker for possible modification of their original sentences.

This statute, established in 2016 and amended in 2018 and 2020, gives individuals who have served at least 15 years for a crime committed prior to age 25 the opportunity to have a court review their sentence. It establishes that the court shall reduce their sentence If the court finds, after considering the factors required under the statute, that the individual is not a danger to the safety of any person or the community and that the interests of justice warrant a sentence modification.

This fact sheet outlines FAMM’s Second Chances Agenda in Pennsylvania, which includes:

• Ending life without parole
• Allowing medical/elderly release and expanding compassionate release, and
• Expanding clemency

Too many people in Pennsylvania are serving long prison terms that don’t make communities safer. People who do not pose a risk to public safety languish in prison for decades because Pennsylvania’s laws don’t give them a second chance. This report, which focuses on people serving minimum sentences of 20 years or longer, looks at the harms and injustices of extreme sentences in Pennsylvania, as well as opportunities for reform.

This report, which was released along with NACDL’s model legislation, describes the justifications for the NADCL’s second look proposal and explains why the right to petition for a sentence reduction should apply to all incarcerated people after 10 years, and periodically thereafter if warranted. It describes the logistics of a flexible second look process, setting forth a wide range of factors judges should consider in assessing whether a lengthy sentence can appropriately be reduced. It argues that states implementing this policy should provide a right to appointed counsel and describes how victims can be given a voice in second look proceedings. It argues for appellate review of second look hearings to best promote consistency and fairness for all incarcerated people. It concludes by advocating mechanisms for channeling the resulting savings back into funding the second look process itself, as well as programs that will help the individuals who receive a second chance to succeed and become productive members of society, to the benefit of all.

This model legislation, developed by the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, would provide incarcerated individuals serving long sentences an opportunity to seek a sentence reduction after they have served at least ten years in custody. The comprehensive bill language includes procedural requirements, factors to be considered, a right to counsel, victims’ rights, a right to appeal, and reinvestment provisions.

This FJP “Issues at a Glance” brief discusses why, consistent with their mission to promote public safety, fiscal responsibility, and justice, prosecutors should seek to review and address excessive sentences that are currently being served. It then looks at the types of mechanisms that may be available for this purpose, depending on the jurisdiction. Finally, it provides specific recommendations of steps that elected prosecutors can take to advance sentencing review and promote second chances as a mechanism to remedy past extreme sentences.