Best Practices for States Implementing Retroactive Sentence Reductions

Best Practices for States Implementing Retroactive Sentence Reductions

Implementing retroactive sentence reductions can be a complex process for states. Here are some best practices and considerations based on recent changes at the federal level that states can follow when enacting their own retroactive reduction policies.

Allow for Delayed Retroactive Application

When the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to allow retroactive application of an amendment reducing sentences for certain drug offenses, they chose to delay implementation until February 2024[1]. This delay allows courts and agencies time to prepare for an influx of resentencing motions and releases. States should consider building in a delayed effective date when passing retroactive reduction legislation.

Conduct Recidivism Studies

Opponents of retroactive reductions often argue that releasing people early will lead to increased recidivism. However, a U.S. Sentencing Commission study on a prior round of retroactive crack cocaine sentence reductions found no statistically significant difference in recidivism rates between early releases and those who served their full sentences[3]. Conducting similar studies can help states debunk recidivism myths.

Provide Reentry Support

Simply releasing people from prison early without support services risks setting them up to fail. States should invest in expanded reentry programs to help individuals transition back into society successfully.

Focus on Most Excessive Sentences

States may want to target retroactive relief to those serving the longest sentences, such as implementing parole eligibility at the 15 year mark for all incarcerated people[5]. This focuses resources on reducing the most excessive sentences.

Make Resentencing Widely Available

The U.S. Sentencing Commission’s retroactive amendment applies broadly to all eligible incarcerated individuals, not just new cases going forward. States should ensure resentencing relief is broadly available.

Apply Consistently to Binding Plea Agreements

Some federal courts have denied retroactive relief to individuals sentenced under binding plea agreements. However, this leads to inconsistent application. States should make resentencing available even in plea agreement cases[4].

Allow Judicial Discretion

Federal retroactive amendments still give judges discretion in whether to grant reductions. Similarly, state judges should have discretion to consider individual circumstances when resentencing.

Review and Update Laws Regularly

Sentencing policies should evolve with society’s values. States should commit to regularly reviewing and updating sentencing laws, not just making one-time changes[5].

Provide Robust Notice and Materials

The U.S. Sentencing Commission published detailed materials to educate stakeholders on retroactive amendments[2]. States should also develop clear explanatory materials and provide robust notice.

Implementing retroactive sentence reductions requires care and planning. But following best practices like conducting recidivism studies, allowing judicial discretion, focusing on excessive sentences, and providing reentry support can help states apply retroactive reforms fairly and effectively.

References

[1] U.S. Sentencing Commission Press Release on Retroactive Sentence Reductions

[2] U.S. Sentencing Commission Retroactivity Materials

[3] U.S. Sentencing Commission Recidivism Study

[4] Article on Applying Amendments to Plea Agreements

[5] Prison Policy Initiative Report on Reducing Long Sentences