Second Chances Resource Library

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.

Governor Maura Healey intends to use clemency to make the Commonwealth of Massachusetts more compassionate and more just. Accordingly, the Governor issued these modernized clemency Guidelines to center responsibility, compassion, fairness, equity, and accountability. These Guidelines are designed to provide parameters to petitioners seeking executive clemency and to assist the Advisory Board of Pardons with reviewing petitions for executive clemency.

The guidelines note factors to be considered in evaluating clemency requests, including racial disparities; sexual identity; the person’s age, maturity, and intellectual abilities and the time of the crime; and their rehabilitation. In addition, for commutation requests, the guidelines call for consideration of a person’s current age (for those over 50) and/or diminished health; as well as factors, such as being a survivor of sexual assault, that put people at heightened risk of harm and trauma while incarcerated.

The guidelines also set forth the procedure for processing clemency applications, including timeline requirements.

People experience severe forms of harm while incarcerated including medical neglect, prolonged solitary confinement, sexual and physical violence, and a host of other ills. But civil rights litigation under the Eighth Amendment—the most common vehicle through which people seek to redress these harms—presents significant practical and doctrinal barriers to incarcerated plaintiffs. Most notably, the Eighth Amendment’s “deliberate indifference” standard asks not whether a person has been harmed, but instead requires plaintiffs to demonstrate a criminally reckless mental state on the part of prison officials. Further, Eighth Amendment remedies are limited to damages or injunctions, which may not adequately redress a specific harm that a person is suffering. For these reasons, the Eighth Amendment has often fallen far short of providing litigants adequate relief.

At the same time, once a person is sentenced, the original sentencing judge generally has no control over whether a harm suffered in prison is remedied. However, since the passage of the First Step Act of 2018, people incarcerated in the federal system have a new vehicle for getting these kinds of claims into court: federal compassionate release. Compassionate release motions are heard by the original sentencing judge, who has the authority to reduce a person’s sentence if they can demonstrate, among other things, “extraordinary and compelling” reasons (ECRs) that warrant relief.

In April of 2023, the Federal Sentencing Commission adopted amendments to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines that drastically expanded the ECR definition to include claims based on the types of harms have been traditionally litigated under the Eighth Amendment. These changes represent a radical and potentially paradigm-shifting reform to federal sentencing law and give district courts enormous discretion to reexamine federal sentences. Given the challenge of redressing harms under the Eighth Amendment, this Article argues that the expansion of compassionate release ECRs to encompass harmful conditions of confinement makes doctrinal sense and allows for a more appropriate remedy to harms done in prison than traditional civil remedies.