Executive summary

This policy brief will examine issues with current sentencing practices and propose reforms to reduce recidivism rates and over incarceration. Incarceration rates in the United States remain the highest globally, as drug-related crimes are subject to harsh sentencing guidelines.

Overview

Relevance

The National Institute on Drug Abuse found that 65% percent of America’s prison population has a substance abuse disorder, with an additional 20% doping when committing their crime. Furthermore, The Prison Policy Initiative discovered that the percentage of those suffering from a substance abuse disorder in prison far outweighed those not incarcerated.

Proper treatment for incarcerated individuals with substance abuse disorders has become increasingly relevant, as the percentage of state prison deaths attributed to drugs and alcohol intoxication continues to increase. The treatments currently offered in prisons are either not effective or not offered at all. The Prison Policy Initiative cites that less than two-thirds of the 3,000 local jails within the United States screen people for opioid use disorder when admitted, and only half provide medications for incarcerated individuals facing withdrawal. As for prisons, although 81% offer some form of treatment, only 10% receive clinical treatment. This suggests that most treatments are self-help or peer-based, causing them to be less effective. These findings emphasize that a change must be made to prevent a further rise in drug-related deaths.

History

Current Stances

The United States has the most prisoners out of any nation in the world. Many see this as an indication to reform the prison system, while others believe harsher punishments are necessary to reduce sentencing rates. The most controversial debates largely revolve around illicit drugs. Considering that over 44% of federal prisoners have drug offenses and over 24% of state prisoners have a drug offense, this is a weighty topic. The Biden administration recently moved towards reclassifying marijuana as a controlled drug, rather than an explicitly illegal drug. Proponents of legalizing illicit drugs and reducing sentences argue the importance of second chances, keeping prisoner populations low, and reducing the number of sentenced years. Detractors of the current movement to reduce drug-affiliated punishments argue the dangers affiliated with drugs and the importance of reducing drug-use rates in the general population.

Another widely debated topic is sentencing reform, specifically regarding mandatory minimums, life without parole, and parole reform fill the media and law sphere. The Democratic party tends to side with more reformist attitudes, while the Republican party advocates for power being vested in the individual judge’s hands. 

Tried Policy

A key development was the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, a shift designed to standardize sentencing, punishments, and the judicial system. By eliminating arbitrary decisions at the discretion of the judge, the act lowered discrimination and implemented transparency into the system. The success of the Sentencing Reform Act is embodied by the Sentencing Commission, a commission established by Congress to oversee sentencing throughout the judicial system. The guidelines established by this commission had been mandatory for nearly two decades until the SCOTUS revoked most of them in 2000. 

“War on Drugs” policies have made a resurgence. Most agree that the War on Drugs failed, but a myriad of states are returning to these policies in an effort to curtail further increases in drug sentences. These policies include the “three-strikes” policy, which mandated a life imprisonment for offenders with two previous convictions for violent crimes or drugs. The policies also include increased guidelines on mandatory sentencing and stricter classifications for harmful drugs.

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1994 and the War on Drugs have both set precedents for sentencing-related policies, but neither has been largely successful. No set of policies have As such, crime remains a critical issue for the American people, regardless of political affiliation.

Policy Problem

Stakeholders 

Members of the legal system, such as judges, attorneys, corrections officers, and probation officers, play a critical role in sentence reform. Judges and attorneys are directly responsible for ensuring fair and equitable sentencing guidelines, therefore their participation and cooperation is essential. Corrections officers, as well as probation officers, oversee the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. Mental health professionals work with all offenders, especially those with mental health or addiction issues, ensuring that rehabilitative services are provided during the length of the incarceration. Policymakers and legislators are also key stakeholders, as they create the laws that dictate sentencing practices. By implementing reforms such as reduced sentences for non-violent offenses, diversion programs, or restorative justice initiatives, the system has the ability to focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment, reducing recidivism rates. ‍

Risks of Indifference  

Neglecting sentence reform perpetuates systemic inequalities, leading to disproportionately harsh punishments for non-violent offenders. Without reform, sentences will remain overly harsh, especially for marginalized communities, which worsens cycles of poverty and criminality. Ignoring these issues results in more individuals being put into overcrowded prisons, which further strains the criminal justice system. Moreover, failure to address outdated sentencing guidelines for non-violent crimes, such as drug offenses, forces many offenders to face longer prison terms than necessary. These individuals are often subjected to environments that do not support rehabilitation, leading to higher rates of recidivism. Individuals sentenced for non-violent crimes typically do not receive the mental health or addiction treatment they need, leading to a higher likelihood of reoffending upon release. Furthermore, failure to pass sentence reform worsens racial disparities, as minority groups are disproportionately affected by unfair sentencing laws. FInally, failing to address this issue also creates a financial burden on taxpayers, as the costs of maintaining high incarceration rates continue to rise. Without reform, taxpayers will suffer the financial burden of a system that focuses on punishment rather than rehabilitation.‍

Nonpartisan Reasoning 

There is broad agreement that sentences should be tailored to individual circumstances to ensure fairness and effectiveness, and many argue for increased funding/staffing in public courts to support this approach. Involving judges, attorneys, and mental health professionals in decision-making may provide a more comprehensive view, helping to ensure that sentencing decisions are both objective and beneficial. This individualized approach aims to balance public safety with rehabilitation, reducing recidivism and addressing systemic disparities.

Policy Options

Improving drug law is a promising solution to overall sentencing reform. For example, repealing mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses would help to reduce incarceration rates. In 2016, the average sentence for drug offenders carrying out a mandatory minimum was 94 months; this was more than double the average of 42 months undergone by those whose crime did not hold a mandatory minimum. By implementing a system in which judges can use their own discretion, justice can be effectively doled out.

Secondly, moving away from the practice of using quantity thresholds in drug sentencing will better consider the conditions of an offense. Life sentences are often widely imposed on adolescent defendants. In fact, in a dataset of 30,000 individuals sentenced to life without parole (LWOP) between 1995 and 2017, ⅖ were 25 or younger at the time of their conviction. Introducing reforms such as parole review and prohibiting LWOP for those under 21 years of age could help account for the psychological state of young adults. In January 2024, the Supreme Court of Massachusetts ruled that LWOP sentences would violate constitutional protections against cruel or unusual punishments. In California, crimes committed between the ages of 18 and 26 are afforded a specialized parole review within 15-25 years. Abolishing death and LWOP sentences altogether and instead instituting a 20-year maximum limit is a measure that has the potential to address the fact that people often age out of crime, with long-term imprisonment generally proving itself to be an ineffective deterrent.

Adopting the practice of “sentence review” is also an encouraging solution to improve the system. These “second look” judicial review processes have judges examine sentences after a person has served a set amount of time. As excessive sentences often maintain a highly discretionary nature, this mechanism of judicial review allows for the opportunity to reevaluate sentences that are decades old, assessing them under current sentencing guidelines. Furthermore, incorporating automatic sentence review after ten years could further monitor disparities in sentencing. Providing access to parole for all, paired with timely review, would ensure that the law is being equitably distributed.

Conclusions

There is a pressing need for sentencing reform in the United States. Incarceration rates and drug-related issues in prisons are at an all time high, and the issue will only get worse. Providing judges with more autonomy, enhancing sentencing practices, incorporating reviews, and favoring rehabilitation over retribution are all steps in the right direction. Effectively implementing these may ease prison overcrowding, rebuild confidence in the justice system, and save innocent lives.

Acknowledgment

The Institute for Youth in Policy wishes to acknowledge Eli Solomon, Anagha Nagesh, Nolan Ezzet and other contributors for developing and maintaining the Policy Department within the Institute.

References

1. “A Federal Agenda for Criminal Justice Reform.” Brennan Center for Justice, August 20, 2024. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/federal-agenda-criminal-justice-reform?ms=gad_criminal+justice+system_502449266615_8629271936_119315546355.
2. Ashley Nellis, Ph.D. and Devyn Brown. “Still Cruel and Unusual: Extreme Sentences for Youth and Emerging Adults.” The Sentencing Project, September 13, 2024. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/still-cruel-and-unusual-extreme-sentences-for-youth-and-emerging-adults/.
3. “Criminal Justice Drugfacts.” National Institutes of Health, March 23, 2023. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugfacts/criminal-justice.
4. “Drug Related Crime Statistics [2023]: Offenses Involving Drug Use.” NCDAS, May 2, 2024. https://drugabusestatistics.org/drug-related-crime-statistics/.
5. Executive summary. Accessed October 19, 2024. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-projects-and-surveys/miscellaneous/15-year-study/executive_summary_and_preface.pdf.
6. Federal drug mandatory minimum penalties. Accessed October 19, 2024. https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/backgrounders/RG-drug-mm.pdf.
7. Feldman, Becky. “The Second Look Movement: A Review of the Nation’s Sentence Review Laws.” The Sentencing Project, June 28, 2024. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/the-second-look-movement-a-review-of-the-nations-sentence-review-laws/.
8. Initiative, Prison Policy. “Addicted to Punishment: Jails and Prisons Punish Drug Use Far More than They Treat It.” Prison Policy Initiative. Accessed October 18, 2024. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2024/01/30/punishing-drug-use/#:~:text=The%20rates%20of%20death%20from,from%201.2%25%20to%206.6%25.
9. Liz Komar, Ashley Nellis. “Counting down: Paths to a 20-Year Maximum Prison Sentence.” The Sentencing Project, February 15, 2023. https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/counting-down-paths-to-a-20-year-maximum-prison-sentence/.
10. The Sentencing Reform Act and U.S. ... Accessed October 19, 2024. https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/publications/washingtonletter/july-24-wl/sra-0724wl.