Executive summary

This policy brief examines issues with current sentencing practices and proposes reforms to reduce recidivism rates and over incarceration. Incarceration rates in the United States remain the highest globally, as currently, drug-related crimes are subject to sentencing guidelines such as mandatory minimums.

Overview

Relevance

The National Institute on Drug Abuse finds that 65% percent of the United States prison population suffers from a substance abuse disorder, with an additional 20% of that toal being on drugs 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 has increased. The treatments offered in jails and prisons are currently 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. This data provides the perspective that a change must be made to drug courts, as the rate of incarcerated individuals with drug abuse disorders is increasing, and thus, a subsequent increase in deaths.

History

Current Stances

The United States currently leads the world’s houser of criminals, with the most prisoners out of any nation in the world. Many see this as an issue necessitating reforms and actions to alleviate the pressure on Americans and the prison system, while others view the issues as stemming from the reforms that have been implemented, with harsher punishments being necessary to reduce sentencing rates.Much of the current debate on sentencing reform surrounds the idea of illicit drugs. The Biden administration has moved towards reclassifying marijuana as a controlled drug, rather than an explicitly illegal drug. As over 44% of federal prisoners have drug offenses and over 24% of state prisoners have a drug offense, drug sentences are a weighty and important topic. 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. 

Aside from the focus on illicit drugs, another key topic in the news today includes sentencing reform . Debate over issues such as 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 more strongly for less strict guidelines on sentencing and the power being vested in the individual judge’s hands. 

Tried Policy

One key development in sentencing reform is 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 and the limited capacity for appeal, the act lowers discrimination and implements transparency and certainty in the system. Issues with rehabilitation became much of the concern with the sentencing system prior to 1984. Rehabilitation and reducing rates of recidivism are key goals of the prison system. With the efficacy of rehabilitation being called into question, reforms designed to give better opportunities and possibilities for prisoners at the end of their sentence became seemingly necessary.  The success of the Sentencing Reform Act is embodied by the Sentencing Commission, a commission established by Congress to give clear stances on what different sentences should be. The guidelines established by this commission had been mandatory for nearly two decades, until the supreme court revoked many of the mandatory sentences in the year 2000. Much of the debate  around sentencing reform with regards to drug-related crimes has been congressional mandates and legislation establishing reform and reforming laws, and the supreme court ruling different aspects of the legislation illegitimate. 

“War on drugs” policies, a set of policies that were on the verge of becoming history, have made a resurgence. Most agree that the war on drugs failed, as it is no longer a commonly used term to describe modern policy and drug sentences have only continued to expand in numbers, but a myriad of states are returning to these policies in an effort to curtail further increases in drug sentences. These policies included the “three-strikes” policies that mandated a life imprisonment for violent offenders with two previous convictions for violent crimes or drugs. The policies also included increased guidelines on what mandatory sentencing should be for certain classes of drugs, as well as the reclassification of many drugs into more dangerous categories.

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1994 and the war on drugs has guided tried policies and outlooks towards sentencing reform in the United States in the modern era. No set of policies have prevailed above others, and crime remains a critical issue for many politicians and Americans across both political spectrums. 

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 will oversee the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. Mental health professionals will work with all offenders, especially those with mental health or addiction issues, ensuring that rehabilitative services are provided during the length of the incarceration. They will do this, as well as ensuring mental health is a key factor in sentencing guidelines. Additionally, policymakers and legislators are key stakeholders, as they create the laws that dictate sentencing practices meaning that their participation is essential in passing sentence reform legislation. The most important stakeholders undoubtedly are the offenders themselves, as sentencing reform directly impacts their lives. 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 and even more over-incarceration. Without reform, sentences will remain overly punishing, especially for marginalized communities, worsening cycles of poverty, criminality, and hurting recidivism rates. Ignoring these issues results in more individuals being put into overcrowded prisons, which further strains the criminal justice system. For example, failure to address outdated sentencing guidelines for non-violent crimes such as drug offenses leaves many offenders to face longer prison terms than necessary. These individuals are often subjected to environments that don’t do enough to support rehabilitation, leading to higher rates of recidivism. Many people sentenced for non-violent crimes may not receive the mental health or addiction treatment they need, meaning a higher likelihood of reoffending upon release. Furthermore, failure to pass sentence reform worsens racial disparities, as minority groups are disproportionately affected by bad sentencing laws. Failing to reform these laws risks continuing systemic racial inequities and heavily jeopardizes the fairness of the criminal justice system. Failing to address this issue also creates a financial burden on taxpayers. The costs of maintaining high incarceration rates continue to rise. Without reform, taxpayers will continue to 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. Many argue for increased funding and 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

Focusing on improving drug law is a promising solution in expanding overall sentencing reform. Repealing mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, particularly provides for a potential idea. In 2016, the average sentence for drug offenders carrying out a mandatory minimum was 94 months of imprisonment; this was over double the average of 42 months undergone by those whose crime did not hold a mandatory minimum. By implementing a system which allows for judges to use their own discretion based on the circumstances of a specific case, justice can be effectively doled out. Additionally, 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. Many states have already begun exploring these ideas. In January 2024, the supreme court of Massachusetts ruled that LWOP sentences would violate constitutional protections against cruel or unusual punishments. In California, people whose crime occurred 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. Taking this process one step forward by including an automatic sentence review at ten years could even further monitor disparities in sentencing. Providing access to parole for all, paired with timely review, would ensure that the law is being equitably distributed to all.

Conclusions

There is a pressing need for reform in sentencing in the U.S. Given the rates of incarceration and the troubling statistic that 65% of inmates struggle with substance use disorders, it is clear that this is a pertinent issue. Eliminating sentences may give judges more leeway in decision making processes Additionally, recent decisions opposing life imprisonment without parole for young individuals show a growing emphasis on rehabilitation. To enhance fairness and lower repeat offenses, effectively implementing sentence review protocols that prioritize policies may ease prison overcrowding and rebuild confidence in the justice system.

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.