Do you believe in second chances? To be more specific, do you believe in second chances for convicted felons, even those sentenced to life in prison or life without the possibility of parole?

Your answer probably depends on details of the original crime committed, right? You might say yes to a second chance for a young adult who was sentenced for accessory participation in a felony and no to a convict who committed a horrendous murder or sexual attack and continues the violent ways in prison.

Over the past few years, a national debate has evolved about how to make prison sentencing more purposeful, thoughtful and not just super punitive, a different type of sentencing based on rehabilitation possibilities and not just retribution, as prosecutors and courts have often focused on these last many decades.

It is obvious that the past practice of handing down so many life sentences has added to the massive prison overcrowding we see today. Mandatory sentencing laws forced judges to impose life without parole in many cases, even for those who may have simply accompanied another person who pulled a trigger or sold large quantities of drugs. These prisoners — especially those in their teens and early 20s whose brains science tells us are not yet fully formed — are truly doomed for the rest of their lives.

Now decades after these draconian sentencing policies went into effect, we have arrived at a more enlightened way of looking at prison punishment. One of the most intriguing reform ideas being floated is the so-called second-look sentencing plan.

The American Law Institute, a learned group of lawyers, judges and academics, undertook revising their outdated Model Penal Code of 1962. In the first-ever update to the code, the ALI added a recommendation that state legislatures adopt second look sentencing.

What is it? In short, it gives convicts who are serving long prison sentences (even life without parole) at least a chance at having their term reduced. Once the idea is adopted by a state, a judicial panel or another judicial decision-maker is appointed to review each inmate application for sentence modification. Only those who have served at least 15 years of their sentence are permitted to apply. And naturally, the convicts' behavior in prison, list of academic or prison accomplishments, and participation in job training and other self-rehabilitation efforts will factor into whether they'll be granted a decrease in sentence or even have their sentence reduced to time served.

Keeping people behind bars forever just because a long-ago judge had to follow a now-archaic law forcing a sentence of life in prison makes no sense. It reeks of pure revenge, which is not the American way. If prisoners have reformed their behavior, expressed honest remorse, done good works within the population and exhibited the desire to live a better life, what good does it do to keep them in prison for another decade or two? Wouldn't it be better to have them rejoin society as a contributing taxpayer?

Let's face it: The U.S. went through an ill-advised orgy-like period of mandatory oversentencing. The odious three-strikes laws gave "persistent offenders" — those already found guilty of two or more previous felonies — long and often life sentences for their third offense, even if it was for simply stealing a piece of pizza. Yes, that really happened to a California man, Jerry Dewayne Williams. Having already served time for robbery, drug possession and unauthorized use of a vehicle, he stole a slice from a group of children. Because of his priors, he got a sentence of 25 years to life.

Do some convicts deserve to remain in prison until they die? Yes, some will always be a threat to public safety and should remain locked up. But I believe many who have already served 20, 30 or 40 years are past their crime-prone years and have paid their debt to society.

For those who worry that early release means more crime, well, the facts say otherwise. The Sentencing Project studied the issue and found the recidivism rate of early releasers was no higher than those who served their full sentences. The nonprofit also surveyed the three states that downsized their prison populations the most — California, New Jersey and New York — and discovered they had "outperformed the nationwide crime drop in most categories."

Governors in at least nine states have commuted the sentences of multiple prisoners serving life without parole. Some lifers have now gone through the process and won their freedom. And realize that every prisoner who undergoes this rigorous review and is deemed fit to be released means the state pays less in incarcerations costs.

With the average annual cost of holding an inmate ranging between $25,000 and $60,000 (depending on the state), the cost benefit of releasing those who have truly rehabilitated themselves is obvious.

Every state in the union should adopt this second-look sentencing program.


(4) comments


The problem I have with this type of story is that there is never any real substance included that would give a person unbiased and accurate information upon which to draw a conclusion. Instead, articles about issues such as prison reform seem always to be written in a manner meant to deceive, and always includes a tear-jerker reference or two (in this case, the 25 years to life sentence of Mr. Williams for stealing a slice of pizza from some children (note: he apparently served only 5 years and, after release, continued to be a naughty boy without further punishment).

For what it is worth:

“ Williams has received lenience repeatedly since the pizza incident, a fact that neither he nor the reporter seem to view as a contradiction of his profound feeling of victimization. One of his subsequent crimes was even a threat of violence:”

P.s I do not necessarily support the “3 strikes and you are out” law – and might I suggest that from what we are seeing today it is more like “30 strikes and you are out … maybe” law – but I will remain unmoved by the usual fluff pieces on the issue.


Some crimes (especially committed at a young age) could be subjects for second chances but, never! If an adult takes someones life in a planned horrific murder they should be executed IMO. A serial killer once convicted should be put to death within a few years of life sentence, same for child killers. Life sentences for non violent crimes seem a little over the top and maybe should be scrutinized for a second chance, but the consequences for messing up a second time should be severe.

Harvey Yoder

This is an issue on which progressives and conservatives alike should be able get together on.


You live in fantasy land Harvey.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.