In July 2009 the Sentencing Project (a nation­al non-prof­it orga­ni­za­tion engaged in research and advo­ca­cy on crim­i­nal jus­tice pol­i­cy issues) released the study, NO EXIT: THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA, authored by Ashley Nellis and Ryan S. King. This report mea­sures the increase in the impo­si­tion of life sen­tences as they relate to inca­pac­i­ta­tion and pub­lic safe­ty, fis­cal costs, goals of pun­ish­ment, and the appro­pri­ate­ness of life sen­tences for juveniles.

Expanding Use of Life Sentences

Sentences of life and life with­out parole have been used for many years. However, over the past twen­ty years, their use has increased sig­nif­i­cant­ly as leg­is­la­tors have expand­ed the types of crimes that can result in a life sen­tence or habit­u­al-offend­er sen­tences, such as ​“three-strikes laws”; as pros­e­cu­tors seek more life sen­tences for crimes; and as the use of parole has declined. The authors dis­cov­ered that since their pre­vi­ous report of 2003 – 2004, more indi­vid­u­als today are serv­ing life sen­tences – 140,610 out of 2.3 mil­lion inmates, rep­re­sent­ing one in 11 peo­ple (or 9.5%) of those in prison. Twenty-nine per­cent of these (41,095) are serv­ing life sen­tences with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty for parole, a 22% increase between 2003 and 2008. Six states – Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota – and the fed­er­al sys­tem, do not offer the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole to indi­vid­u­als serv­ing a life sen­tence. Only in Alaska do all life sen­tences have the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole.

According to the study, parole has become a politi­cized issue in recent years. Parole boards and gov­er­nors are increas­ing­ly reluc­tant to grant parole to eli­gi­ble indi­vid­u­als serv­ing life sen­tences. ​“When the choice must be made between grant­i­ng parole at the risk of polit­i­cal back­lash or deny­ing parole, many deci­sion mak­ers will opt for the less risky option.” (p 27) Two Presidential can­di­dates, Michael Dukakis in 1998 and Mike Huckabee in 2008, had to con­tend with neg­a­tive crit­i­cism con­cern­ing indi­vid­u­als in their states who had been grant­ed parole and then reoffended.

Racial Implications

This study looked at the racial and eth­nic make-up of those serv­ing life sen­tences. It found that racial and eth­nic minori­ties serve a dis­pro­por­tion­ate share of life sen­tences. Two-thirds of peo­ple with life sen­tences (66.4%) are non­white. Nearly half of indi­vid­u­als serv­ing a life sen­tence (48.3%) are African-American. The researchers found it more dif­fi­cult to ascer­tain the num­ber of Hispanics serv­ing life sen­tences as many states do not have a sep­a­rate cat­e­go­ry for Hispanic. From the states where they could get data, they dis­cov­ered that 14.4% of per­sons serv­ing life sen­tences are Hispanic. When they looked at how many blacks were serv­ing life-with­out-parole sen­tences, they dis­cov­ered that blacks make-up 56.4% of the LWOP population.

Conclusions

The report ques­tions the rea­son for con­tin­u­ing the poli­cies of the American judi­cial sys­tem that sen­tences peo­ple to lengthy sen­tences, includ­ing life. It chal­lenges whether such sen­tences ben­e­fit those incar­cer­at­ed or the pub­lic more than sen­tences of a par­tic­u­lar dura­tion. The authors of this report make the fol­low­ing recommendations:

  • elim­i­nate sen­tences of life with­out parole
  • elim­i­nate juve­nile life with­out parole sentences
  • pre­pare per­sons who are sen­tenced to life for release back into society
  • restore the use of parole.

To col­lect the data used in their study, the authors sent a sur­vey to all state depart­ments of cor­rec­tion and the Federal Bureau of Prisons and received usable data, from all but two states.

Visit the Sentencing Project Web site

Read the report