By Jose Pina-Sánchez, Julian V. Roberts and Jonathan Bild,

This Research Bulletin reports findings from the first comprehensive analysis of ‘sentence inflation’ in England and Wales. Unlike previous analyses, this one encompasses all years since 2005 and all offences.

In a previous research bulletin by the Sentencing Academy Pina-Sánchez et al. (2023) documented a significant increase in sentence severity in England and Wales over the last two decades. However, the extent to which this increase in sentence severity is due to a genuine process of ‘sentence inflation’ was unclear. The changing nature of crime might have affected the offence mix processed through our criminal courts. It is possible that the cases sentenced by the courts have become more serious over the period in question. To the extent that this has occurred it would constitute ‘explainable’ or natural inflation. If the cases sentenced are more serious, sentence severity should reflect this changing pattern.

The analysis relates two indices. One – the Imprisonment Index – measures sentence severity by combining the custody rate and Average Custodial Sentence Length (ACSL). The second index measures the seriousness of cases appearing for sentencing.

The Sentencing Academy’s submission to the Sentencing Review reported new analyses comparing trends of sentence severity and crime seriousness for three offence groups: sexual offences, drug offences, and criminal damage offences. In this report, we expand that preliminary analysis to include all major offence groups. This enables us to estimate the overall increase in sentence severity independent of changes in the mix of offences sentenced.

We estimate that since 2005, sentence severity has increased by 62%, while the seriousness of crimes processed through courts has increased by only 8%. This means that 87% of the increased sentence severity over the period was due to changes in sentencing practice, or as we term it, ‘sentence inflation’. Put differently, we estimate that sentencing in England and Wales is today 54% more punitive than in 2005. This is the first analysis to provide an estimate of the overall degree of sentence inflation in this or any other jurisdiction.

Our analysis reveals that sentence inflation has been far from uniform. Whereas no discernible pattern can be detected for drug offences, or public order offences, sentence severity for offences involving violence or weapons related offences has doubled since 2005. Sentence severity for fraud offences has tripled.

London: The Sentencing Academy, 2025. 7p.

By Catalina Franco Buitrago, David J. Harding, Shawn D. Bushway, and Jeffrey D. Morenoff

We find that people involved in low-level crime receiving a prison sentence are more likely than those with non-prison sentences to be re-imprisoned due to technical violations of parole, rather than due to new crimes. We identify the extent and cost of this incapacitation effect among individuals with similar criminal histories using exogenous variation in sentence type from discontinuities in Michigan Sentencing Guidelines. Technical violations disproportionately affect drug users and those first arrested as juveniles. Higher re-imprisonment adds one-quarter to the original sentence’s incapacitation days while only preventing low-severity crime, suggesting that prison is cost-ineffective for individuals on the margin.

NHH Dept. of Economics Discussion Paper No. 03/2022, 79p.

By Daniel Loehr

They are widely understood to have emerged from the “tough-on-crime” movement in the 1980s and 1990s. During this time period, a number of states passed these laws, often in the form of “Three Strikes and You’re Out” laws, which require judges to impose life sentences for third convictions for certain offenses. Washington state passed such a law in 1993, California amended a prior version of its law in 1994 adding a number of violent and non-violent crimes that would qualify for life sentences, and the federal government included a three strikes law in the 1994 Crime Bill. Despite these prominent examples of “habitual offender” laws enacted during this time period, the origination of these laws extends back much further. “Habitual offender” laws first spread across the country in the early 1900s as part of the eugenics movement, which grew in the 1880s and reached its peak in the 1920s. The aim of the eugenics movement was to create a superior race in order to address social problems such as crime and disease, which the movement assumed had a biological basis. Applying pseudoscience, laws and policies were created to prevent those who were deemed inferior, such as the mentally ill, those convicted of criminal offenses, or the physically frail, from reproducing. Eugenics and racism are deeply entwined, and the “projects” of eugenics supported “racial nationalism and racial purity.” One example of the relationship between race and eugenics is found in Nazi Germany, where "Nazi planners appropriated and incorporated eugenics as they implemented racial policy and genocide.  

The report reveals that many of the United States’ “habitual offender” laws, are rooted in eugenics – a widely discredited theory once deployed by Nazis during World War II, that humans can be improved through selective breeding of populations, deeming certain groups as inferior and inhibiting their ability to reproduce. “Habitual offender” laws first spread across the United States in the early 1900s as part of the eugenics movement, and many endure today in 49 states and the federal government.    

American eugenicists promoted “habitual offender” laws – laws that impose longer sentences based on an individual's past convictions – because they believed that certain people who committed crimes were genetically predestined to commit those crimes and could spread their criminality to their children. Although the country shifted away from eugenics after World War II, states like California continue to enforce “habitual offender” sentencing laws that emerged from the eugenics movement.

The report provides a list of current “habitual offender” laws in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal government and highlights the eugenic principles used to advocate and pass these laws in states like California, Vermont, and Colorado. 

• California’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law results in life sentences for offenses that typically would not warrant such extreme punishment. The law’s origins can be traced to 1923. Leading up to its passage, California eugenicists called for a sentencing law that would prevent reproduction.

• Colorado’s “habitual offender” law retains the same operative core as its eugenics-era version from 1929. After vetoing the state’s sterilization bill in 1927, Colorado's Governor noted that long-term sentences would be the better option, noting that “the end sought to be reached by the [sterilization] legislation can be obtained by the exercise of careful supervision of the inmates, without invoking the drastic and perhaps unconstitutional provisions of the act.”

• Vermont passed its first “habitual offender” law in 1927. The then-Governor proposed sterilization or long sentences for “habitual criminals” in order to “restrict the propagation of defective children.” That law remains in force today with only minor textual changes. 

The history of "habitual offender" laws in America is deeply rooted in the racist and pseudoscientific eugenics movement which has left a lasting legacy of irreparable harm to Black and brown communities. These laws were never about justice – they were based on exclusion and false, dangerous belief in hereditary criminality. Dismantling "habitual offender" laws is not just a matter of policy – it is a moral imperative.

Washington, DC: Sentencing Project, 2025. 20p.