Being Number One is not Always Grounds for Bragging

U.S. Still Tops in the World-In Handing Out Life Sentences

By Derek Gilna

            The Sentencing Project has recently published a report, entitled “Life Goes on: The Historic Rise of Life Sentencing in America,” noting that one in nine prisoners in the U.S. is now serving a life sentence.  The U.S. Leads the world in number of prisoners with such sentences, all of this despite the decline in crime rates and the slight decline in prisoner populations overall.

            According to the same report, a record 160,000 prisoners are now serving life sentences, four times the number that existed in 1984, and the fastest-growing category of incarceration is life-without-parole, which has reached 49,000 nationwide.  This constitutes a 22% increase in this category since 2008. Contrast this total with that of Great Britain, who now incarcerates only 49 “lifers.”

            In many ways, the trend reflects misguided correctional decisions made since 1984, when the “War on Drugs” was launched, and clearly the “life without parole” category lends itself by definition to steadily increasing numbers of prisoners.  Mandatory sentencing statutes, political pressures to be “tough on crime,” and “three strikes” laws have all played their part.

            People who continue to support life sentences will argue that life in prison confines the “worst of the worst,” but statistics do not support this opinion.  Both state and federal statutes and sentencing guidelines have resulted in the “stacking” of non-violent felonies into life sentences, adding to the nation’s ever-increasing totals.  Guidelines based on drug quantities have resulted in many additional life sentences, especially in the federal system, resulting in a “graying” of the prison population in many institutions. Increasing numbers of prisoners grow old in institutional settings, resulting in skyrocketing expenses for prisoner medical care.

            Sentencing practices in various states are also to blame for the rising tide of “lifers.” According to the report, “Five states-California, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania account for more than half the national lifer population, although every state except Alaska maintains a life-sentenced population.

 California leads the nation in this category, in large part because of its 1994 “three-strikes” law, is home to 25% of the nation’s life-sentenced prisoners. California is not alone in the “three strikes” practice.  Thirteen states and the federal government also subscribe to this theory.

The report also noted that the length of life sentences is growing.  In 1991 the average prisoner sentenced to life could expect to serve an average of just over 21 years; by 1997, that figure had increased to 29 years.  Many states, despite declining crime and incarceration rates, are seeing a rise in life-sentenced prisoners in the past decade.

            In New York, although the prison population has dropped almost 20% in the past decade, the number of parole ineligible lifers rose 249%.  In New Jersey, despite a 16% decline in prisoner population, the lifer population increased 232%. Michigan has also experienced a similar increase in lifers despite a falling prisoner count.

            Also driving this increase is the political benefit gained by politicians who highlight their “toughness” on crime by refusing to approve parole-eligible prisoners for release, or grant clemency even when it is warranted. Media attention on the few paroled prisoners committing new offenses also puts pressure on office-holders and decision makers to be stingy in granting lifers sentence relief or release, often citing public safety concerns.

            These concerns are misplaced, according to many experts. Studies done by The Sentencing Project have shown that individuals released from life sentences are less than one-third as likely to reoffend within three years as all other released prisoners. Also, even hardened prison administrators have noted that many “lifers” are models of good behavior in prison, as they adjust over the years to institutional life behind bars.

            The August, 2013 speech by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder was a major development in attempting to recalibrate the nation’s crime-fighting and incarceration priorities, focusing on rehabilitation as well as incarceration alternatives.   In large part, this policy reflects the new financial priorities in Washington, where lawmakers have found that the more they spend on incarceration the less they have available for their other policy priorities.

            It also recognizes the reality that serious crime is roughly half of what it was twenty years ago.  More observers with law-enforcement backgrounds have publicly supported changes in mandatory sentencing law, increased education and retraining for released prisoners, and a more nuanced approach to criminal justice.  For such policies to be effective, they would have to include eliminating sentences of life without parole, increasing the use of executive clemency, preparing people sentenced to life for eventual release from prison, and restoring the role of parole. Such an approach would require a more reasoned and calibrated approach that would pay dividends not only financially, but also socially in a society that puts too many people in jail for excessive periods of time, with little or nothing to show for it.