By ALISSA SKOG AND JOHANNA LACOE

 Research series examining second look policies in California The five policy briefs and overview report in this series describe the characteristics and recidivism rates of individuals affected by second look policies in California. Committee on Revision of the Penal Code Before Proposition 47, California prosecutors had discretion to charge certain low-level drug possession and property theft offenses under $950 as either misdemeanors or as felonies. In response to growing concerns about incarceration rates, the cost of incarceration, and the long-term impact of felony convictions for lower-level offenses, voters passed Prop 47 in 2014. The measure reclassified specific drug and property offenses as misdemeanors, reducing associated penalties. It also allowed individuals already serving sentences in prison or county jail for those offenses to petition for resentencing. This brief examines who was resentenced under Prop 47, the offenses for which they were originally convicted, and their recidivism rates following release. It focuses only on people who were serving a prison sentence at the time of resentencing, not people who were serving a jail sentence. Key findings • More than 4,700 people in prison were resentenced under Prop 47, and half were in custody for a felony drug offense. Of the 4,723 people resentenced, 47% had a felony drug offense as their primary offense, 38% had a property offense, and 15% were incarcerated for a more serious offense, but had a subordinate property or drug offense resentenced — while their sentence for the more serious offense remained unchanged. • People resentenced under Prop 47 often had multiple prior bookings and served short prison terms. Nearly 50% had three or more prior prison admissions, and almost half had been in prison for less than one year at the time of release. • Three years after release, 57% of people resentenced under Prop 47 were convicted of a new offense, and the majority of new convictions were for misdemeanors. That rate is higher than the 42% reconviction rate for everyone released from CDCR in fiscal year 2018–19. Most new convictions were for misdemeanors (38%) or non-violent, non-serious felonies (14%). Fewer than 5% had a first reconviction within three years for a serious or violent felony, and 8% had their first post-release prison admission for a serious or violent felony (these rates differ because a person's first reconviction may be a less serious offense than the one that led to their first prison admission). 

By ALISSA SKOG AND JOHANNA LACOE 

California’s Three Strikes sentencing law lengthens prison sentences based on an individual’s prior convictions, specifically adding a “strike” for each prior “serious” or “violent” felony. Under the original law, a person with two prior strikes who was convicted of any third felony — regardless of whether it was serious or violent — faced a mandatory sentence of 25 years to life. This approach led to lengthy sentences for individuals whose third offense was neither serious nor violent, prompting concern about fairness and over-incarceration. In response, voters passed Proposition 36 in 2012, which generally limits the 25-years-to-life sentence to cases in which the third felony is also serious or violent. Although Prop 36 did not change the rule that a second strike results in a doubled sentence, it created a resentencing pathway for people serving third-strike life sentences for non-serious, non-violent offenses. Individuals that met the new criteria could petition the court for a reduced sentence, helping align past sentences with current sentencing standards. This brief examines who was resentenced under Prop 36, the offenses for which they were originally convicted, and their recidivism rates following release. Key findings • More than 2,200 people were resentenced and released earlier due to changes in California’s ThreeStrikes sentencing. There were 2,217 people incarcerated in California’s prisons for a non-serious, non-violent third-strike that were released earlier after Prop 36 prohibited the application of a 25-year-to-life sentence for these offenses and allowed people already incarcerated with this sentence to apply for resentencing. • People released under Prop 36 were largely Black and aged 50 or older at the time of release. Almost half (46%) of those released under Prop 36 were Black — compared to approximately 6% of California’s resident population and 24% of people released from prison in fiscal year 2018-19. Over two-thirds were 50 years old or older at release and 59% spent more than 15 years in prison. • Three-year recidivism rates for people released due to Prop 36 resentencing were lower than the total release population. Twenty-five percent of people released under Prop 36 were convicted of a new offense within three years, and nearly two-thirds of those convictions were for misdemeanors. In comparison, 42% of total releases were convicted of a new offense within three years, and 26% were misdemeanors.

By ALISSA SKOG AND JOHANNA LACOE 

Research series examining second look policies in California The five policy briefs and overview report in this series describe the characteristics and recidivism rates of individuals affected by second look policies in California. Committee on Revision of the Penal Code Criminal justice system reforms — especially those revising sentencing laws — often have applied only to new cases. This means that individuals who were already sentenced under outdated laws will not benefit from the reforms. Prior to 2018, California law allowed a three-year sentence enhancement for anyone with a prior conviction for possession of a controlled substance who was later convicted of another drug offense. Senate Bill 180 (2018) repealed this enhancement except in cases involving minors. Similarly, Penal Code § 667.5(b) allowed a one-year enhancement for any prior prison or felony jail term. But, in 2020, Senate Bill 136 went into effect, restricting this enhancement to only be applied in cases where the individual had prior convictions for sexually violent offenses. However, neither SB 180 nor SB 136 applied retroactively — meaning thousands of people remained incarcerated under enhancements no longer active in the state. To address this gap, Senate Bill 483 (effective 2022) authorized courts to resentence individuals serving time for enhancements repealed under SB 180 and SB 136. The goal of this bill, which was based on a recommendation from the Committee on Revision of the Penal Code, was to bring past sentences in line with current sentencing standards and reduce unnecessary incarceration. This brief examines who was resentenced under SB 483, the offenses for which they were originally convicted, and the recidivism rates for people who have been released. Key findings • More than 3,000 people have been resentenced under SB 483. Most of those resentenced (92%) had a oneyear prior prison enhancement. As of December 2024, just over one-third had been released from prison. • People resentenced under SB 483 were largely Black or Hispanic and in their early 30s at the time of their offense. Black and Hispanic individuals made up 75% of those resentenced under SB 483, at 38% and 37%, respectively, with a median offense age of 31 across all racial and ethnic groups. • The median sentence reduction after resentencing under SB 483 was approximately two years. • People resentenced under SB 483 had typically spent a long time in prison. The median time in prison was slightly less than 13 years, and nearly twothirds had served at least 10 years. • Early recidivism rates were slightly lower than the general release population. Among the 356 individuals with one year of post-release data, 18% were convicted of a new offense, compared to 21% of people released from prison in fiscal year 2018–19. Eight percent had a new felony conviction and 10% had a new misdemeanor 

• The median sentence reduction after resentencing under SB 483 was approximately two years. • People resentenced under SB 483 had typically spent a long time in prison. The median time in prison was slightly less than 13 years, and nearly twothirds had served at least 10 years. • Early recidivism rates were slightly lower than the general release population. Among the 356 individuals with one year of post-release data, 18% were convicted of a new offense, compared to 21% of people released from prison in fiscal year 2018–19. Eight percent had a new felony conviction and 10% had a new misdemeanor

By ALISSA SKOG AND JOHANNA LACOE 

Research series examining second look policies in California The five policy briefs and overview report in this series describe the characteristics and recidivism rates of individuals affected by second look policies in California. Committee on Revision of the Penal Code In 2018, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) implemented a new process to identify and refer incarcerated people for resentencing under Penal Code § 1172.1 (then codified as § 1170(d)). This initiative aimed to reduce sentencing disparities and recognize rehabilitation during incarceration. Though prosecutors and courts can also initiate resentencing under this law, this data is not tracked statewide and not included in this analysis. Under this process, CDCR can recommend that a person’s sentence be recalled and modified based on specific criteria: changes in sentencing laws, exceptional conduct while incarcerated, or requests from law enforcement or judicial officials. Staff from CDCR's case records department typically refer people due to legal changes affecting their sentence, while CDCR staff who have direct knowledge of a person’s conduct may request that a warden evaluate the case for an exceptional conduct recommendation. All referrals are reviewed by the CDCR Secretary, who decides whether to forward them to the sentencing court for possible resentencing. This brief examines CDCR-initiated resentencing referrals, the individuals resentenced, the offenses for which they were originally convicted, and their recidivism rates following release. Key findings • Since 2018, the CDCR Secretary has referred more than 2,200 people for resentencing More than half of these referrals occurred within the first two years of the policy going into effect. • However, fewer than half of those referred by the CDCR Secretary were granted resentencing. As of December 2024, 47% of individuals referred by the Secretary had been resentenced, while 786 cases were denied. • Most people were resentenced based on changes in sentencing laws. Among those released, 84% were resentenced due to changes in the law, while 16% were resentenced for demonstrating exceptional conduct during incarceration.• Women made up a larger share of those resentenced for exceptional conduct compared to their share of the incarcerated population. Women made up 17% of exceptional-conduct resentencings, which is more than twice their share of total releases (7%) and triple their share (5%) under sentencing-law resentencings. • New conviction rates were low among those resentenced and released. Within one year, 4% of people released through CDCR-initiated resentencing were convicted of a new offense, compared to 21% of total releases. Three-year rates are similarly lower, though we can only show three-year outcomes for 39% of these individuals. • Only five people resentenced for exceptional conduct were convicted of a new offense within three years. Of the 93 people resentenced for exceptional conduct who can be observed three years post release, none were convicted of a new serious or violent felony during that time.

By Ray  Madding  Mcconnell

Ray Madding McConnell’s Criminal Responsibility and Social Constraint first appeared in 1912 as one of the more philosophically ambitious works of the American Progressive Era. Though rarely cited today, the book occupies a fascinating place in the early twentieth-century dialogue between philosophy, criminology, and legal reform. Its author, who died shortly before the book’s publication, taught social ethics at Harvard and belonged to a generation deeply convinced that clearer thought could repair the accumulating confusions of modern criminal law. His book is therefore both a legacy and an argument: a legacy of Progressive rationalism and an argument for reconsidering the foundations of punishment in an age increasingly aware of causation, psychology, and social science.

More than a century after its publication, Criminal Responsibility and Social Constraint offers a valuable perspective for scholars, legal theorists, and reformers. It is a window into the moment when American thought on crime and punishment began to absorb scientific psychology, social statistics, and philosophical determinism. It presents an early, coherent version of a consequentialist theory of punishment that still structures major parts of modern practice. And it invites readers to confront the perennial tension between causation and accountability: how can a society committed to science and determinism still punish, censure, and regulate?

McConnell’s answer is that responsibility is a socially constructed tool—one that must be justified by its utility rather than by metaphysical claims about freedom. Whether one accepts or contests that answer, it remains a stimulus to deeper thinking about the moral and practical foundations of the criminal law. In that sense, McConnell’s book continues to speak forcefully to our age, reminding us that the architecture of justice must rest on reasons we can defend, not merely on traditions we have inherited.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. p.234.

By H. M. Fogle. Intrdosction by Graeme Newman

At once a chronicle and a funeral dirge, The Palace of Death stands as a haunting testament to early twentieth-century American penal culture. Published in 1909 by an Ohio penitentiary official, H. M. Fogle's volume compiles 59 firsthand accounts of incarceration and execution—each rendered with chilling precision and accompanied by stark photographic documentation. The period covers the execution by hanging and the transition to the electric chair, all in considerable detail. These narratives propel the reader through the twilight of life, revealing how society confronts its most extreme judgments. Yet, behind the factual veneer lies a provocative tension: does Fogle intend to expose the tragedy of fallen humanity, or to feed a voyeuristic appetite for death? In this liminal space between documentation and spectacle, the work demands not only attention, but moral inventory.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2025. p.229.

By Sabrina C. Pearce

The number of people sentenced to life in prison has drastically increased over the last five decades. Of the 194,803 people serving life sentences in 2024, nearly half of them, 97,160 people, were serving parole-eligible sentences. A parole-eligible life sentence is also referred to as life with parole (LWP) or life with the possibility of parole (LWPoP). Parole is the conditional release of an incarcerated individual after spending a portion of their sentence in prison. Its purpose at inception was to serve as a bridge between an incarcerated person and their community, balancing the needs of the individual and the needs of the community, with the aim toward reintegration.

To be eligible for parole, a person sentenced to life must serve a required minimum sentence or reach their “parole eligibility date.” The minimum parole eligibility date is the earliest point at which an incarcerated individual may be considered for parole, minus any time credits earned. Once the required minimum sentence is served, these individuals may re-enter society upon the approval of a paroling authority, most often a parole board. But as this report shows, over the past 50 years legislators across the country have raised the minimum sentence required for parole eligibility, delaying release of millions and significantly transforming the meaning of a life sentence.

In addition, governors have appointed parole commissioners who are reluctant to grant parole. As a result of both factors, newly paroled life-sentenced individuals have served longer prison terms than those in years past. Furthermore, even fewer people are receiving parole hearings in recent years as political, public, and media pressures to adopt more punitive practices continue to rise. The result: increased prison terms and prolonged punishment.

Longer prison sentences are costly and divert important investments away from effective measures to prevent crime and incarceration, such as mental health support, healthcare services, jobs, education, and other resources that produce healthier and safer communities. Lengthy periods of delay can lead to disillusionment and diminish the hope and well-being of those incarcerated as well as their supportive loved ones and communities as they longingly await the day of release. Timeliness in parole hearings is crucial as parole delays interfere with an incarcerated person’s ability to preserve family, friends, community, and other ties, which may present challenges for successful reintegration upon release.

Through in-depth profiles of five states and the experiences of two individuals, this report illustrates the trend toward increasing wait times for initial parole hearings, subsequent rehearings, and sometimes the elimination of parole eligibility entirely for individuals serving parole- eligible life sentences.

Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2025. 24p.