Second Chances Resource Library

In this decision, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court found life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) sentences to be unconstitutional under the Massachusetts Constitution for people who were 18 to 20 years old at the time of the crime. The Court further held that this applies retroactively, which means that people currently serving LWOP in Massachusetts who were 18 to 20 at the time of the crime will be eligible for parole consideration under the time-frames that apply to people who were under 18 at the time of the crime. Sentences for people who were under 18 at the time of the crime were changed on July 25, 2014, so qualifying individuals sentenced to LWOP prior to that date will be eligible for parole consideration after serving 15 years, while those sentenced after that date will be eligible after serving 20 to 35 years, depending on the specifics of the crime. The decision does not guarantee that they will be released; it simply provides them the opportunity to go in front of the parole board, show their rehabilitation, and demonstrate that they are ready to safely return to the community.

This decision was based in large part on a growing understanding of the science of adolescent brain development. The Court pointed to four specific ways in which emerging adults differ from older adults due to their not-fully-mature brains:

• Emerging adults are “less able to control their impulses in emotionally arousing situations” than older adults, and instead are more similar to 16 and 17 year olds in terms of impulse control.
• Emerging adults are “more prone to ‘sensation seeking,’ which includes risk-taking in pursuit of rewards,” in comparison to both older adults and younger teens.
• Emerging adults are “more susceptible to peer influence” than older adults.
  Emerging adults “have greater capacity to change than older individuals because of the plasticity of the brain during these years.”

This document lists second chances laws enacted in 2023. It also discusses the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s amendments to the policy statement governing federal compassionate release, which help position compassionate release as a potential avenue for challenging unjust sentences in federal cases.

This document highlights research supporting second chances. It lists research in the following categories: criminal history, emerging adults, felony murder, international, parole, polling, public safety impact, racial justice, sentencing reform, time served, and victims/survivors.

The United States experienced a 25% decline in its prison population between 2009, its peak year, and 2021.  While all major racial and ethnic groups experienced decarceration, the Black prison population has downsized the most.  But with the prison population in 2021 nearly six times as large as 50 years ago and Black Americans still imprisoned at five times the rate of whites, the crisis of mass incarceration and its racial injustice remain undeniable.  What’s more, the progress made so far is at risk of stalling or being reversed.

Second look laws allow a decision-maker to reevaluate a person’s sentence after a significant period of time served in prison and determine if that sentence is still necessary. Potential second look decision-makers include courts, parole boards, governors, heads of departments of corrections, and specialty sentence review boards. There are pros and cons for each potential second look decision-maker. This document looks at factors to be considered when evaluating and choosing a decision-maker in a particular jurisdiction. Passing legislation that uses one decision-maker does not preclude current or future legislation allowing other decision-makers to conduct second looks.

The Justice Policy Institute’s (JPI) mission is dedicated to reducing the use of incarceration
in the justice system by promoting fair and effective policies. With this goal in mind, the GW team
chose to dive deep into the flaws and challenges of the re-entry system. The District of Columbia
currently does not have policies and programs in place that make re-entering society easier for
returning citizens. These individuals face many obstacles, including employment struggles, a lack
of access to education resources, a lack of resources for mental and behavioral health, and many
more. However, the main problem addressed in this report is the access to housing for those who
are re-entering society. The Justice Policy Institute requested an examination of the concept of
homelessness and recommended practices that could be adopted by Washington D.C. to
accommodate those re-entering society, referred to as returning citizens throughout this report.
This report will examine the current literature surrounding this issue, analyze interviews with
executives within this field, and establish promising practices by utilizing identified key
components. Finally, recommendations were provided to JPI for their use in advocating for policy
change on this issue

Researchers at the Justice Policy Institute (JPI) analyzed five years (FY2017 – FY2021) of data reflecting practices by the Maryland Parole Commission (MPC). Those data—collected, prepared, and shared by the Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services —cover parole eligibility, the number of cases heard, grant rates, denial rates, lengths of supervision, and parole revocations.

In developing recommendations, JPI consulted with people who have experience with the Maryland parole system, their family members, and attorneys who assist individuals applying for parole. We also reviewed the latest research and examined best practices in parole in other states.