Delaying a Second Chance: The Declining Prospects for Parole on Life Sentences

Executive Summary

Amid growing public support for criminal justice reform, policymakers and criminal justice practitioners have begun to scale back prison sentences for low-level, nonviolent crimes. Although the results have been modest—a 5% reduction in the overall U.S. prison population between 2009 and 2015—this shift follows almost four decades of prison expansion. But so far, criminal justice reform has largely excluded people in prison with life sentences. This growing “lifer” population both illustrates and contributes to the persistence of mass incarceration.

Most people serving life sentences were convicted of serious crimes.¹ Their incarceration was intended to protect society and to provide appropriate punishment. But many were sentenced at a time when “life with the possibility of parole” meant a significantly shorter sentence than it has become today. Many remain incarcerated even though they no longer pose a public safety risk.

Researchers have shown that continuing to incarcerate those who have “aged out” of their crime-prone years is ineffective in promoting public safety.² Long sentences are also limited in deterring future crimes given that most people do not expect to be apprehended for a crime, are not familiar with relevant legal penalties, or criminally offend with their judgment compromised by substance abuse or mental health problems.³ Unnecessarily long prison terms are also costly and impede public investments in effective crime prevention, drug treatment, and other rehabilitative programs that produce healthier and safer communities.⁴

Despite this body of criminological evidence, the number of people serving life sentences has more than quadrupled since 1984—a faster rate of growth than the overall prison population.⁵ Even between 2008 and 2012, as crime rates fell to historic lows and the total prison population contracted, the number of people serving life sentences grew by 12%. By 2012, one in nine people in U.S. state and federal prisons—nearly 160,000 people—were there under life sentences. Two factors have driven this growth: the increased imposition of life sentences, particularly those that are parole-ineligible,⁶ and an increased reluctance to grant parole to the 110,000 lifers who are eligible.

This report documents the growing wait for parole among eligible lifers and identifies four factors producing longer prison terms for this population. The findings draw on a national survey in response to which 31 states and the federal government provided data for available years since 1980.⁷ The analyses reveal that a variety of policy choices and practices at the state and federal levels have caused recently paroled lifers to serve longer prison sentences than their counterparts in the past. Specifically, and as elaborated in 32 in-depth jurisdiction profiles:

• In South Carolina, lifers paroled in 2013 had served an average of 27.5 years in prison whereas those paroled in 1980 had served 11.6 years.
• In Missouri, time served among paroled lifers increased steadily from 15.0 years in 1991 to 25.2 years in 2014.
• In eight jurisdictions for which data are available since the 1980s, average time served by lifers with murder convictions nearly doubled from 11.6 years for those paroled in the 1980s to 23.2 years for those paroled between 2000 and 2013.⁸
• In California, death before parole is not an uncommon outcome for lifers. A press spokesman for the corrections department has stated that “most lifers will die in prison before they get out on parole,” and state records reveal that more lifers with murder convictions died in prison than were paroled between 2000 and 2011.⁹

Our examination of the 32 jurisdictions for which we were able to obtain data identifies four key drivers of the growth in prison terms for parole-eligible lifers:

1. Legislation:
   Lawmakers in several states have made parole much harder to obtain by delaying when lifers can receive their initial parole consideration and by increasing the wait times for subsequent hearings after parole is denied.
2. Gubernatorial Authority:
   Governors in some states have overhauled the composition of parole boards to appoint members who will reduce parole grants. In a few states, gubernatorial approval is necessary before parole boards can even review cases or for their recommendations to become final.
3. Parole Board Decisions:
   Parole boards now are evaluating lifers who have served longer sentences than their counterparts in the past. Yet despite a general understanding that older parole applicants pose a reduced risk of recidivism, parole boards have not increased, and sometimes have even reduced, their grant rates.
4. Parole Board Procedures:
   Most states afford only limited rights to incarcerated individuals during parole hearings and some recently have further narrowed these rights.

Lifer parole procedures have broad implications. According to the American Law Institute, the most severe penalties serve as an “anchor point,” or a benchmark of severity, on which penalties are established for less serious crimes.¹⁰ By placing upward pressure on prison sentences for people with less serious convictions, excessive prison terms for lifers have contributed to a major cause of mass incarceration.

To reduce excessive prison terms, The Sentencing Project has previously recommended that states and the federal government abolish sentences of life without the possibility of parole and limit most prison sentences to a maximum of 20 years.¹¹ Based on the findings of this report, we make four additional proposals. To reduce excessive sentences for parole-eligible lifers and to give rehabilitated individuals a meaningful opportunity for release from prison—as the Supreme Court now requires for those convicted as juveniles¹²—we recommend that policymakers and parole practitioners:

1. Expedite parole eligibility:
   Reduce the minimum number of years that lifers must serve before their first parole hearing and shorten wait times for subsequent hearings.
2. Depoliticize and professionalize parole boards:
   Distance governors from paroling authorities to enable parole decisions to be based on meaningful assessments of public safety risk.
3. Establish a presumption of release:
   Parole boards should assume that parole candidates are potentially suited for release at the initial, and especially subsequent, parole hearings unless an individual is deemed to pose an unreasonable public safety risk.
4. Improve the integrity of parole hearings:
   Expand the procedural rights of parole applicants, enable parole applicants to review the evidence used to evaluate their eligibility for parole, and allow the public to review decision-making criteria and outcomes.

This report is organized as follows: Section I presents key findings on lifer parole policies, practices, and outcomes across the country based on data provided by state and federal agencies and other organizations. Section II provides an in-depth look at a sample of four states: California, Georgia, Missouri, and New York. These states were chosen based on the size of their lifer populations, the representativeness of their lifer parole procedures and outcomes, geographic distribution, and availability of data. Sections III and IV summarize past research on people serving life sentences and on parole boards, respectively. Section V concludes by recommending reforms to depoliticize the parole process and reverse the excessive growth in prison terms for lifers. The Appendices present details on our methods of data collection and analysis. A supplemental document contains the profiles of all 32 jurisdictions for which we obtained data.

Click here to read full report.