1
Public Support for Using “Second Chance” Mechanisms to Reconsider Long-Term Prison
Sentences for Drug Crimes
Colleen M. Berryessa
Assistant Professor, School of Criminal Justice, Rutgers University
Abstract
Using a national sample of U.S. adults (N = 371), this study experimentally examines (1) public
support for the use of strategies that provide early release (i.e., “second chance” mechanisms) to
individuals serving long-term prison sentences for drug crimes; and (2) how levels of support,
and reasons for support, may vary depending on the type of drug-related offense. Results show
moderate levels of support for using second chance mechanisms, both generally and in relation
to specific strategies commonly available across jurisdictions, for a range of drug offenders. Yet
participants showed significantly more support for using presumptive parole, elimination of
parole revocations for technical violations, second-look sentencing, and compassionate release in
the cases of those incarcerated long term for serious trafficking of marijuana, as compared to
serious trafficking of serious drugs. Data also suggest that the public finds a range of factors—
including the original sentence being extreme by international standards, extreme due to racially
biased practices, out of step with current sentencing values/practices, too costly, and continuing
to incarcerate someone unlikely to be a public safety threat—as at least moderately important to
their support for the use of second chance mechanisms across drug crimes, and the importance of
these factors to that support does not appear to differ significantly based on the type of drug
offense. The importance of these results for policy making and utilization are discussed, as well
as implications for reducing our historical reliance on drug-related incarceration.

2
I. Introduction
For over fifty years, the growth in the U.S. prison population has been fueled by increasing
sentence lengths for drug crimes,1 leading to an era of “hyperincarceration”2 of offenders
sentenced under get-tough drug-control strategies. Yet, in recent years, policy and public
sentiment have changed toward drug-related crimes, and growing critiques of the so-called war
on drugs and of drug sentencing have greatly influenced public beliefs about the use of long-term
prison sentences for drug offenders.3 Long-term incarceration for many drug offenses is now
broadly recognized as ineffective in preventing reoffending and ensuring public safety.4 Despite
these developments, hundreds of thousands of drug offenders remain in prison.
To date, there has been insufficient reconsideration of long-term sentences currently
being served by those incarcerated for drug offenses. Strategies currently exist that could help
provide these offenders opportunities for early release at the state and federal levels; yet these
strategies, which can be conceptualized as “second chance” mechanisms, have so far been vastly
underutilized for drug offenders and have had only minor effects on alleviating our reliance on
mass incarceration.5 However, given that changes in public opinion are considered helpful in
enabling criminal justice policy formation and utilization,6 the literature suggests that public
support of these second chance mechanisms for drug offenders might provide policy makers an
initial spark to action in utilizing such strategies.7 As a contribution to that process, the current
study provides needed data indicating the current extent of U.S. public support for “second
chance” mechanisms in drug cases.
II. Sentencing as a Weapon: Long-Term Incarceration for Drug Crimes
The United States has relied primarily on punitive sentencing practices as a main weapon in the
long-lasting war on drugs.8 Since the 1970s, the primary goal of the war on drugs was increased
use and length of criminal sentences for those convicted of drug offenses, as a way to ensure
public safety via reduced recidivism and drug use.9 Several punitive drug-related laws came into
force in the 1970s, with widespread adoption at state and federal levels of mandatory minimum
sentencing.10
In 1984, reacting to “war rhetoric,” Congress created the U.S. Sentencing Commission,
which crafted sentencing guidelines that limited the discretion of federal judges and resulted in
more severe penalties for many federal crimes, particularly federal drug offenses.11 This was
followed by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which created new weight-based mandatory
minimum sentences for drug offenses and the now infamous 100-to-1 powder cocaine-to-crack
ratio, leading to decades of racially disproportionate and highly punitive sanctions for federal
drug offenders.12 Meanwhile, many states passed “truth-in-sentencing” laws that made it
mandatory to serve 85% of sentences for certain felonies, including many drug crimes.13 Further,
fourteen states abolished the ability of parole boards to release inmates, with a main goal of
keeping drug offenders behind bars for longer.14
Ultimately, as a consequence of state and federal drug sentencing laws, the numbers of
drug offenders in state and federal prisons, the likelihood of imprisonment given an arrest, and
the amount of time served in prison have been amplified.15 Between 1980 and 2013, the number
of incarcerated federal drug defendants increased by >2,000%, to >100,000 inmates.16 State
prison admissions for drug offenses increased from ~10,000 in 1980 to ~157,000 in 2006.17
Yet there is limited empirical evidence that punitive drug sentencing laws have had
tangible effects on the goals of public safety, recidivism, and public health.18 This is notable,
given that supposed benefits of drug-related incarceration were used by policy makers as the

3
main justification for enacting and using such laws.19 Studies on the overall impacts of punitive
drug sentencing laws have found minimal or no evidence for their effects in reducing recidivism
and the availability or use of illegal drugs in the United States.20 In fact, much research has found
that long-term sentences have had criminogenic effects on drug offender recidivism.21
Punitive drug sentencing laws have also raised questions about their social and fiscal
costs. Federal drug policies cost more than $15 billion per year, and state and local spending is
likely even greater.22 If such laws yield minimal safety and health effects, this brings up
significant questions about whether they are worth the cost. Socially, studies have found that
drug sentencing laws have disproportionately affected racial and ethnic minorities, with African
Americans sentenced to mandatory minimum penalties for drug offenses at a significantly higher
rate than white Americans.23 Long-term sentences have been thought to produce social costs to
communities and families, and these effects have been felt disproportionately in minority
communities largely because of drug-related convictions.24
In recent years, questions about the efficacy and utility of punitive drug sentencing laws
have begun to intersect with national debates about how to reduce incarceration. Concern about
the effectiveness of punitive drug control policies and sentencing has been at the core of these
conversations; those who advocate for drug sentencing reforms claim that current practices are
expensive, ineffective, racially biased, and have more negative social, monetary, and collateral
consequences than any benefits that come from such laws.25
In turn, this has led to increased reform efforts to roll back draconian state and federal
drug sentencing laws, particularly by reducing the amount and length of prison admissions for
drug offenses.26 Indeed, some jurisdictions have begun to embrace and enact drug sentencing
reforms, albeit modestly. For example, Mississippi repealed its truth-in-sentencing law for
offenses involving drug possession and reduced time-served requirements to 25% of original
sentences.27 Federally, the U.S. Sentencing Commission revised drug offense guidelines
downward by an average of two years (“drugs minus two”) in 2014,28 and Congress passed the
Fair Sentencing Act, which decreased the powder-to-crack-cocaine sentencing ratio to 18-to-1, in
2010.29
III. “Second Chance” Mechanisms for Early Release from Long-Term Incarceration for
Drug Offenses
Yet a major contention of critics of recent drug sentencing reforms is that these measures often
do little to mitigate the historical impacts of these laws and, particularly, to reduce the massive
existing prison population of drug offenders who have been sentenced under decades of punitive
sentencing laws.30 Around 16% of all state prisoners and >45% of federal prisoners are currently
incarcerated for drug crimes, some of whom serve life sentences stemming from these laws.31
Nearly 66,000 prisoners are currently incarcerated for more than a year for simple drug
possession.32 Even if current and future reforms begin to scale back sentence lengths, thousands
of drug offenders will remain in prison serving long-term sentences.
In response, policy reformers have pressed for the active reconsideration of punishments
of those currently incarcerated under these laws; particularly, there have been discussions about
using and expanding existing strategies for early release of those currently serving long-term
sentences for drug offenses.33 These second chance mechanisms can be employed by policy
makers in order to provide prisoners opportunities for early release, irrespective of initial
sentencing decisions, by giving discretion to judges and governors in making decisions about
early release and also increasing eligibility and likelihood of parole.34 Second chance

4
mechanisms shorten a person’s original sentence through eight basic strategies, including
presumptive parole, second-look sentencing, granting of good time, universal parole eligibility
after fifteen years, retroactive application of sentence reduction reforms, elimination of parole
revocations for technical violations, compassionate release, and commutations.35
Particular second chance mechanisms have been applied to long-term incarcerated drug
offenders in recent years; however, examples of such mechanisms suggest that they have been
sparsely used and vastly underutilized,36 only having minor or modest effects on the long-term
incarceration of drug offenders. More than 1,700 drug offenders, almost all of them sentenced
under federal mandatory minimum provisions for drug crimes, were issued commutations by
President Obama in 2016; however, this number represents only 2% of all federal drug
offenders.37 The U.S. Sentencing Commission’s “drugs minus two” recently was applied
retroactively to ~31,000 federal prisoners; however, the average federal drug sentence is still
longer than ten years, even with the guidelines change.38 In 2018, the First Step Act made
changes to federal drug sentencing by making the Fair Sentencing Act retroactive, but this still
only affected ~2,600 federal inmates.39 The First Step Act also increased the use of good time
credits for federal drug offenders, but it only changed offenders’ average good time credit days
from forty-seven to fifty-four days per year.40 Finally, even at the state level, the Texas
legislature also passed a bill allowing drug offenders to reduce sentences via good credit
systems; however, receipt of good time credit is contingent upon full satisfaction of victim
restitution and judicial consent, which has often stopped offenders from using such credits.41
IV. Popular Support of “Second Chance” Mechanisms for Drug Crimes
If sentencing systems are committed to criminal justice reform and undoing our
dependence on long-term incarceration, policy makers must be willing to utilize and expand
existing second chance mechanisms for drug offenders. Yet the use of second chance
mechanisms as a way to reduce long-term sentences for drug offenders has not been seriously
pursued by policy makers, even though such mechanisms are often available in different
jurisdictions.42 Indeed, political leaders have been hesitant to “backpedal” on punitive sentencing
policies for drug crimes because this can be viewed as “soft on crime” and politically risky.43
However, it is possible that popular support for the use of these mechanisms in the cases of drug
offenders may trigger policy makers’ interest in using such strategies. Policy makers often react
to public opinion when executing criminal justice policy and reforms, and err in the direction of
such opinions if a policy is believed to be important to the public.44 Thus, public opinion has
been thought to permit the development, passage, and use of criminal justice policy and reform.45
There are already significant national and state-level data indicating that members of the
public, across demographic groups and political parties, strongly support changing how we
punish people who commit drug offenses and their sentence lengths. A national poll by the Pew
Research Center found that 63% of Americans believed that moving away from mandatory
sentences for drug crimes was a “good thing.”46 Similarly, another national poll in 2016 found
that ~80% of respondents favored ending mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, and
>60% believed that prisons hold too many drug offenders.47 In a poll of Maryland voters, >80%
of respondents favored giving judges more discretion in deciding sentences for drug offenses,48
while 84% of poll respondents in Oklahoma, spanning both political parties and demographic
groups, believed that sentences for drug offenders should be shortened.49 Overall, these data
suggest broad public support for “rethinking” long-term sentences for drug offenders as a salient
issue within popular sentiment and attitudinal trends.

5
Yet, although evidence certainly suggests that the public appears largely supportive of
rethinking how we sentence drug offenders, it does not provide data to show whether the public
supports the early release of those who are already long-term incarcerated for drug crimes. One
recent study found that members of the public appear generally supportive of using second
chance mechanisms for those serving long-term sentences for serious drug trafficking, and even
support the use of some mechanisms significantly more in the cases of serious drug traffickers as
compared to other types of non-drug offenders.50 However, this existing evidence is limited to
one broad category of drug offenses and does not take into account the level or type of
trafficking, which are key indicators used to calculate potential sentence lengths. To date, data on
public support for commonly available second chance mechanisms for a broader range of drug
offenders still remain unknown. Although policy makers may be in a current climate that would
allow them to consider the wide-ranging use of second chance mechanisms for drug offenders,
research is still needed to demonstrate the existence and extent of the public’s support for their
use.
V. Current Study
In order to fill this much-needed gap in the literature, using a national sample of U.S. adults, the
study described here empirically examines public support for using commonly available second
chance mechanisms in the cases of those serving long-term sentences for drug offenses. In
addition to providing a descriptive picture of overall public support, this inquiry focuses on two
main avenues.
First, it is possible that public support of second chance mechanisms for drug offenders
may not be universal. Specifically, there is evidence to suggest that the public may be hesitant to
allow for the early release of those convicted of offenses they consider particularly harmful or
serious in nature.51 Indeed, unlike many categories of offenses, drug crimes can vary with respect
to their severity, the substance involved, and whether or not they are considered victimless; for
example, unlike drug possession, which may often be considered a victimless crime, more
serious drug offenses involving criminal enterprise could potentially lead to direct or indirect
victimization of others.52 Due to such differences, the public might not necessarily extend the
same levels of support for the early release of those incarcerated for more serious drug crimes
that may be perceived to have victims (i.e., serious trafficking of serious drugs), as compared to
more minor forms of the same type of offense that perhaps involve a different substance (i.e.,
minor trafficking of marijuana), or as compared to less serious drug offenses that are arguably
victimless (i.e., drug possession). Thus, this study examines whether and how levels of public
support for second chance mechanisms may vary depending on the type of drug crime.
Second, if public support for using second chance mechanisms for drug offenders may
indeed help to provoke action from policy makers, reasons for that support are also important.
Indeed, policy makers must make efforts to understand why policies are supported in order to
best ensure their legitimacy.53 In order for the criminal-legal system to achieve moral authority
and credibility, its outcomes need to be compatible with public intuition.54 Engaging the public
in their reasons for supporting or not supporting the use of criminal justice policies and practices,
especially for particular categories of offenders, can help achieve this.55 For example, as policy
makers across jurisdictions look to potentially structure and expand the eligibility of second
chance mechanisms for different drug offenders, it would be valuable for them to know how
reasons for public support of such mechanisms may differ depending on the type of drug offense.
Thus, this study examines (1) the public’s reasons for supporting second chances in regard to a

6
range of drug offenses and (2) whether and how these reasons may differ depending on the
offense.
VI. Methods
A. Participants
The target population was a national sample of U.S. adults (ages eighteen and older),
demographically balanced in gender, race, education, income, and geography. The sample,
balanced on quotas matching the demographic breakdown of the United States, was requested
from Qualtrics Panel (a commonly used online panel who requests participants in surveys across
the United States). An a priori power analysis (accounting for covariates, using f = 0.25, α =
0.05, power = 0.95 for five groups) indicated that a sample of >350 respondents was needed for
sufficient power.
B. Study Design & Procedure
The materials and structure of this study, using a randomized experimental design with five cells,
were patterned from the author’s recent study on general popular support for second chance
mechanisms in relation to a range of nonviolent and violent crimes.56
After providing consent, participants were randomly presented with one of five brief
descriptions about incarceration in the United States for one of five drug crimes: drug
possession, minor trafficking of marijuana, minor trafficking of serious drugs (defined as
cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine), serious trafficking of marijuana, and serious trafficking
of serious drugs (defined as cocaine, heroin, or methamphetamine). Convictions for these five
drug crimes represent the majority of long-term incarcerated drug offenders at state and federal
levels.57 Each stimulus included a brief definition, drawn from a Brennan Center Report on U.S.
incarceration,58 of (1) the crime in question, (2) the number of prisoners incarcerated for that
crime, (3) the percentage of the national prison population incarcerated for that crime, and (4) the
average years served and likelihood of recidivism for that crime.
Regardless of variations in the individual stimuli, all participants were asked to rate, on a
sliding scale from 1 (strongly oppose) to 25 (oppose) to 50 (neutral) to 75 (support) to 100
(strongly support), how much they supported the use of each of eight common second chance
mechanisms for offenders incarcerated long term for the specific drug offense in question. These
included (1) presumptive parole; (2) second-look sentencing; (3) good time credits; (4) universal
parole eligibility after fifteen years; (5) retroactive application of sentence reduction reforms; (6)
elimination of parole revocations for technical violations; (7) compassionate release; and (8)
commutation. Descriptions provided to participants for each second chance mechanism were
directly patterned on the work of the Prison Policy Initiative59 and previously used in the
author’s recent study on general public support for second chance mechanisms. 60 Participants
were also asked, on the same scale, how much they generally supported the use of “second
chance” mechanisms (regardless of mode) in the cases of offenders incarcerated long term for
each specific drug offense category.
Then, on a sliding scale from 1 (not at all important) to 50 (neutral) to 100 (completely
important), all participants were asked to rate the importance of different reasons, or factors, for
their support for the use of second chance mechanisms in relation to each specific drug offense
category. These factors have been identified by existing poll data as reasons that drive general
public support of laws that provide “second chances,”61 including the following: (1) the original

7
prison sentence is extreme by international standards; (2) the original prison sentence was
excessive because of race-based policies or racial bias; (3) the original prison sentence is too
costly and wastes taxpayer dollars; (4) the individual who has been incarcerated is either no
longer or unlikely to be a threat to public safety; and (5) the original prison sentence is unfairly
out-of-step with current views/values on or practices in sentencing. The use of these factors and
their descriptions were inspired by the work of Data for Progress62 and, once again, have been
previously used in the author’s recent study.63
Demographics—including age, race, gender, education, income, political orientation, and
geography—were collected from participants. Because previous literature suggests that prison
sentences may bring solace to victims,64 previous victimization of one’s self and/or loved ones
was also measured of participants. Self-report of prior drug addiction and/or drug addiction of a
loved one was also collected as a control variable.
Two previously validated scales65 were used to control for participants’ general
punishment orientations. Questions used a 1 (definitely not) to 100 (definitely yes) scale in
response to the question of whether each item was the best way to reduce crime. The Traditional
Punishment Philosophy Scale resulted in an averaged composite score of seven items (α = 0.75).
Higher ratings denoted traditional punishment orientation (deterrence, retribution,
incapacitation). The Rehabilitative Punishment Philosophy Scale resulted in an averaged
composite score of seven items (α = 0.88), with higher ratings demonstrating rehabilitative
punishment orientation (rehabilitation, restoration). An attention check was asked to ensure that
individuals read and understood the survey.
VII. Results
A sample of 371 individuals completed the study, with 52.02% identifying as female. The mean
age was Mage = 44.18 years (SD = 17.58). The racial breakdown was that 60.92% identified as
White Non-Hispanic, 12.40% as Black, 18.60% as Hispanic, 5.66% as Asian, and 2.43% as other
or mixed race. The education breakdown was that 35.53% of the sample had a high school
education or less, 20.88% had some college, 28.03% had an associate’s/college degree, and
16.44% had completed postgraduate study. As for income, 14.29% reported <$25,000 annual
income; 19.95% reported $25,000–$49,000; 18.06% reported $50,000–$74,999; 13.21%
reported $75,000–$99,999; 32.35% reported >$100,000; and 2.16% preferred not to respond.
Geographic background included 22.37% from the West, 22.91% from the Midwest, 35.31%
from the South, and 19.41% from the Northeast. Politically, 46.36% of the sample identified as
Democrat, 23.45% as Republican, and 30.19% as Independent or Other. A total of 45.82%
indicated previous criminal victimization, and 26.68% reported personal experiences with drug
addiction. The average Traditional Punishment Philosophy score was MTPP = 59.98 (SD =
20.77). The average Rehabilitative Punishment Philosophy score was MRPP = 62.71 (SD =
18.86).
Descriptive statistics are presented in Tables 1 and 2, showing levels of participant
support for second chance mechanisms and ratings on the importance of various relevant factors
to their support, across different drug offenses. Average levels of support for the use of each
second chance mechanism and for the general use of second chance mechanisms regardless of
mode, for all drug offenses, were above neutral (50) and between neutral (50) and support (75),
respectively (Table 1). Participants’ ratings on the importance of different factors to their support
for the use of second chance mechanisms were also all above neutral (Table 2). The sampling
strategy resulted in slightly unequal sample sizes across cells.

8
One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to examine whether the drug
offense specified as the reason for long-term incarceration significantly affected participants’
levels of support for the use of second chance mechanisms. This resulted in nine models (one for
each second chance mechanism and one for general support of second chance mechanisms
regardless of mode). Each model included all demographic and control variables to control for
any potential effects of these factors on participant support. Tukey HSD post hoc tests were
conducted in cases in which ANOVAs were significant.
Results showed that participants’ levels of support for the use of presumptive parole
(F104, 266 = 2.51, p = 0.041), elimination of parole revocations for technical violations (F104, 266 =
2.43, p = 0.047), second-look sentencing (F104, 266 = 2.80, p = 0.026), and compassionate release
(F104, 266 = 2.61, p = 0.037) differed significantly depending on the drug offense specified as the
reason for long-term incarceration. The same pattern was observed for all four second chance
mechanisms showing significant main effects; participants supported the use of presumptive
parole (t = 2.87, p = 0.035), elimination of parole revocations for technical violations (t = 2.77, p
= 0.046), second-look sentencing (t = 2.97, p = 0.026), and compassionate release (t = 2.90, p =
0.032) significantly more in the cases of those incarcerated for serious trafficking of marijuana,
as compared to those incarcerated for serious trafficking of serious drugs.
Participants’ levels of support for the use of universal parole eligibility after fifteen years
(F104, 266 = 1.58, p = 0.180), commutation (F104, 266 = 1.43, p = 0.222), good time credits (F104, 266
= 1.77, p = 0.134), retroactive application of sentencing reforms (F104, 266 = 1.16, p = 0.327), and
the general use of second chance mechanisms regardless of mode (F104, 266 = 0.79, p = 0.531) did
not differ significantly based on the drug offense specified as the reason for long-term
incarceration.
One-way ANOVAs were also used to examine whether the drug offense specified as the
reason for long-term incarceration significantly affected participants’ ratings on the importance
of different factors to their support for the use of second chance mechanisms. This resulted in
five models (one for each factor/reason) that also included all demographic and control variables.
Overall, there were no significant main effects for the type of drug offense. Participants’
ratings on the importance of the factors—the original sentence being extreme by international
standards (F104, 266 = 0.31, p = 0.871), excessive because of race-based policies or bias (F104, 266 =
0.28, p = 0.889), too costly and wasting taxpayer dollars (F104, 266 = 0.60, p = 0.660), unfairly out
of step with current views/values on or practices in sentencing (F104, 266 = 0.37, p = 0.827), and
continuing to incarcerate someone who is unlikely to be a threat to public safety (F104, 266 = 0.23,
p = 0.923)—to their support for the use of second chance mechanisms did not differ significantly
based on the drug offense specified as the reason for long-term incarceration.
VIII. Discussion
This research represents the first examination published to date of popular support for the use of
second chance mechanisms in the cases of individuals serving long-term prison sentences for
different drug offenses. These initial data suggest moderate levels of support, among the U.S.
public, for the use of second chance mechanisms—in general and for specific commonly
available strategies—in cases of long-term incarceration for drug offenses. Indeed, these results
show relatively little public opposition to the use of second chance mechanisms for any of the
examined drug offenses or modes of early release. Although previous studies have suggested that
the public could be hesitant in considering the early release of offenders convicted of crimes
believed to be serious or harmful,66 members of the public appear to support the use of second

9
chance mechanisms for a variety of drug crimes, from drug possession to serious trafficking of
serious drugs, that range in levels of seriousness and average length of sentence.
Although there has been little political action with regard to the utilization of second
chance mechanisms,67 policy makers currently appear to be in the best position yet to consider
their use for different drug-related offenses. Thus, political leaders at all levels of government
should take note and potentially follow the public’s lead68 in considering the use of second
chance mechanisms, as well as their availability and expansion, for drug crimes.
Interestingly, the results also suggest that members of the public view serious trafficking
of serious drugs and of marijuana differently in relation to second chance mechanisms.
Participants indicated significantly more support for the use of presumptive parole, elimination
of parole revocations for technical violations, second-look sentencing, and compassionate release
for those incarcerated long term for serious trafficking of marijuana, as compared to serious
trafficking of serious drugs. These results are interesting, because significant differences in
support were observed not in relation to the nature of the offense (i.e., serious drug trafficking),
but rather in relation to the type of drug trafficked (marijuana vs. serious drugs). As recidivism
rates and average sentences for first-time and repeat offenders are somewhat similar for serious
trafficking of either serious drugs or marijuana,69 this further suggests that the type of seriously
trafficked drug may be particularly influential to the public’s support for modes of early release.
These results may have implications for how policy makers consider the use of certain
release mechanisms, including some second chance mechanisms—such as second-look
sentencing and compassionate release—that have been or can be applied to serious drug
trafficking, regardless of substance. For example, the Second Look Act provides for the federal
second-look sentencing of terms longer than ten years, including those convicted of drug
trafficking, regardless of substance.70 Compassionate release, although used sparsely, has also
been used to release those serving long-term sentences for serious trafficking of marijuana or
serious drugs.71 Although compassionate release and second-look sentencing are applicable to
those in prison for both types of serious drug trafficking, the data suggest that the public may be
most interested in utilizing these mechanisms to revisit sentences of long-term incarceration for
serious trafficking of marijuana.
Further, the federal government and some states do not allow some second chance
mechanisms—including presumptive parole or elimination of parole revocations for technical
violations—for serious drug traffickers, regardless of substance.72 Yet these data advise that the
use of these practices may be especially welcome for those serving, or recently released from,
long-term sentences for serious trafficking of marijuana.
This pattern of results may not be surprising, given recent opinion data on views toward
marijuana, as compared to other drugs like cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine. Although
public views toward drugs generally have shifted in recent years, such trends have been most
dramatic for marijuana, with perhaps the most significant shifts occurring in the last five years.73
In a recent national Pew poll, two-thirds of U.S. adults said that marijuana should be legal, up
from around half five years earlier.74 Further, across demographic and political lines, 59% of
U.S. voters indicated that the federal government should not enforce laws in states that allow
marijuana use.75
A likely explanation for changes in attitudes toward marijuana is that it is now commonly
believed to be a significantly less harmful substance than other drugs and even legal substances,
such as alcohol or prescription drugs.76 Given the legal availability of marijuana and its cultural
presence in the United States, the literature indicates that particular crimes may take on a sense

10
of normalcy as actions related to them become more socially accepted and widespread—and,
accordingly, as support for harsh responses by the criminal justice system decline.77 Thus, given
that serious trafficking of marijuana can potentially result in decades or even life in prison at the
federal level,78 it is unsurprising that the public might reevaluate the extent to which crimes
involving marijuana should be that severely punished, as compared to serious trafficking of
serious drugs, which commonly receives similarly severe sentences.79
In the same vein, length of incarceration, signifying harshness of punishment, appears to
be important to levels of public support for using second chance mechanisms for drug-related
cases involving marijuana. Average ratings were descriptively higher for serious, as compared to
minor, trafficking of marijuana across all measures of support for second chance mechanisms.
Further, although in a similar directional pattern to the one discussed above, differences in levels
of support for the use of second chance mechanisms for minor trafficking of marijuana, as
compared to serious trafficking of serious drugs, ultimately did not reach statistical significance.
Given that average sentences are around twelve to twenty-seven months for minor trafficking of
marijuana,80 it is unsurprising that levels of support might be highest for using second chance
mechanisms in circumstances in which an offender convicted of a marijuana-related crime is
most likely to spend considerable time behind bars.
Moving forward, the results presented here also suggest that members of the public find a
range of reasons, including the original sentence being extreme by international standards, due to
racially based practices/bias, out-of-step with current sentencing values/practices, too costly, and
continuing to incarcerate someone unlikely to be a public safety threat, as at least moderately
important to their support for using second chance mechanisms in drug cases. Yet the importance
of these factors did not differ significantly based on the offense, suggesting that similar reasons
motivate public support for using second chance mechanisms across drug offenses that range in
their potential for victimization, their seriousness, and the substances involved. Indeed, as policy
makers look to potentially structure and expand offender eligibility for second chance
mechanisms, these findings communicate to such leaders that the public’s reasons for supporting
their use may not depend on the nature or type of drug offense.
Such data also suggest that support for using second chance mechanisms across different
drug-related offenses most likely stems from a combination of these factors, and not necessarily
from a single reason. The public often considers support for policies in terms of “connections
that they draw between the issue and their core beliefs.”81 Sometimes, “core beliefs” even fight
to effect policy support.82 This study indicates, however, that several core beliefs surrounding
why it may be important to provide second chance mechanisms for drug offenses can
successfully coexist, and may even work together, when the public considers support for using
these mechanisms.
Policy makers should strive to understand reasons for public support of policies in order
to ensure their moral authority and credibility.83 This study represents a starting point for
engaging the public in their intuitions for supporting the use, availability, and expansion of
second chance mechanisms for drug offenders. Dialogue with the public on reasons for their
support helps challenge policy makers to consider the utility and use of policies, like second
chance mechanisms for drug offenders, that may not be as presently or widely utilized as they
could be.84 Indeed, “dealing the public in”85 can and should ultimately play an important role in
promoting the legitimacy of criminal justice policies and enhancing their widespread use.
There are some study limitations to note.. While randomized experiments like this one
can reduce the biases associated with results of self-report surveys and polls,86 these methods do

11
not replace opinion polls. Therefore, future work should poll a representative sample of U.S.
voters on these issues, as this sample was limited to Qualtrics Panel participants.. Work using
different methodological designs, stimuli, and samples are also needed in order to provide
tangible policy endorsements to policy makers. Indeed, this research did not examine every
second chance mechanism, drug-related offense, or factor important to public support, and the
ways in which stimuli were presented or described to participants could have contributed to the
results. For example, using the word serious to describe categories of drug offenses could have
affected participants’ views. Views on an expanded list of these concepts, with varied stimuli,
should be examined. Further, although not reaching statistical significance, there were several
descriptive differences between levels of support for mechanisms and factors important to public
support across the results presented here, and these differences should be further probed for
practical significance in future inquiries.
It is also important to consider some recent criticisms about the influence of public
attitudes on criminal justice and whether it is actually best for our policies and practices to be
aligned with public views. Specifically, there have been concerns that members of the public
may be swayed by only what is visible to them (e.g., media coverage), rather than possessing and
acting upon a full understanding of an issue.87 Thus, the present results and implications should
be considered with knowledge of these criticisms.
In closing, many states have revised their drug penalties and reduced prison populations
over the past decade without increases in crime rates, suggesting that long-term incarceration for
drug offenses is not necessary to ensure public safety.88 Although currently underutilized, the
public appears generally supportive of using a range of second chance mechanisms across drug
offenses. This suggests that if policy makers are willing to utilize them, second chance
mechanisms might both mitigate historical impacts of drug sentencing laws and provide a key
“downsizing strategy” for reducing our long-term reliance on drug-related incarceration.
Ultimately, using second chance mechanisms for drug offenders can and will have an enormous
effect in reducing mass incarceration.89

12
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics on Study Participants’ (N = 371) Levels of Support for “Second
Chance” Mechanisms, Across Drug Offenses.
Support for use of policy in cases of:
Minor
Serious
Minor
Serious
trafficking trafficking trafficking trafficking
Drug
of
of
of serious
of serious
possession marijuana marijuana
drugs
drugs
Policy
(n = 71)
(n = 77)
(n = 72)
(n = 74)
(n = 77)
General use of “second
65.65
64.18
68.26
62.39
62.13
chance” mechanisms
(25.25)
(24.53)
(23.85)
(26.06)
(23.64)
63.45
64.19
66.25
61.53
54.55
Presumptive parole
(26.63)
(20.72)
(25.30)
(24.98)
(26.75)
Universal parole eligibility
63.63
63.12
64.28
58.07
56.46
after fifteen years
(26.37)
(24.22)
(24.27)
(24.79)
(25.31)
Elimination of parole
62.13
63.46
67.96
57.94
56.35
revocations for technical
(25.07)
(25.38)
(25.08)
(25.59)
(26.37)
violations
65.55
62.97
63.06
59.71
56.66
Commutation
(26.85)
(22.73)
(25.95)
(23.37)
(27.01)
64.68
69.46
71.36
63.76
59.83
Second-look sentencing
(25.86)
(18.68)
(21.34)
(24.36)
(26.78)
67.43
69.71
72.15
67.06
62.27
Granting of good time
(25.77)
(20.84)
(22.03)
(24.17)
(25.37)
70.26
68.02
73.46
66.80
61.78
Compassionate release
(25.25)
(23.65)
(19.44)
(25.82)
(27.60)
Retroactive application of
66.38
64.76
66.87
61.04
60.22
sentence reduction reforms
(24.27)
(24.31)
(25.18)
(25.99)
(23.50)
Note: Values are means (with standard deviation in parentheses) on a scale of 1–100, where 1 =
“strongly oppose,” 25 = “oppose,” 50 = “neutral,” 75= “support,” and 100 = “strongly support”;
see text for further details.

13

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics on Importance of Various Factors in Study Participants’ (N = 371)
Levels of Support for “Second Chance” Mechanisms, Across Drug Offenses.
Importance to support for “second chance” mechanisms in cases
of:
Minor
Serious
Minor
Serious
trafficking trafficking trafficking trafficking
Drug
of
of
of serious
of serious
possession marijuana marijuana
drugs
drugs
Factor
(n = 71)
(n = 77)
(n = 72)
(n = 74)
(n = 77)
The original prison sentence is
62.93
63.26
62.69
60.76
59.71
extreme by international
(25.86)
(20.44)
(26.13)
(23.50)
(25.30)
standards.
The original prison sentence
65.47
63.83
66.67
63.62
66.99
was excessive because of race(24.36)
(24.55)
(26.17)
(25.04)
(26.88)
based policies or racial bias.
The original prison sentence is
69.02
62.65
68.59
66.58
66.35
too costly and wastes taxpayer
(29.25)
(23.87)
(28.26)
(26.67)
(29.14)
dollars.
The individual who has been
incarcerated is no longer or
63.99
66.19
67.98
66.67
65.93
unlikely to be a threat to public
(26.16)
(25.39)
(25.38)
(22.66)
(28.02)
safety.
The original prison sentence is
unfairly out of step with
63.95
64.92
65.49
66.69
62.05
current views/values on or
(25.89)
(21.03)
(26.85)
(23.36)
(28.57)
practices in sentencing.
Note: Values are means (with standard deviation in parentheses) on a scale of 1–100, where 1 =
“definitely not,” 50 = “neutral,” and 100 = “definitely yes”; see text for further details.

14

1

James Austin et al., How Many Americans Are Unnecessarily Incarcerated?, 29 Fed. Sent’g Rep. 146 (2017).

2

See Loïc Wacquant, Class, Race & Hyperincarceration in Revanchist America, 139 Daedalus 74 (2010).

3

See Michael Vitiello, The War on Drugs: Moral Panic and Excessive Sentences, 69 Cleveland St. L. Rev. 441
(2021).
4

Id.

5

Jorge Renaud, Prison Policy Initiative, Eight Keys to Mercy: How to Shorten Excessive Prison Sentences,
https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/longsentences.html (last visited Apr. 7, 2021); Colleen M. Berryessa, A Tale of
“Second Chances”: An Experimental Examination of Popular Support for Early Release Mechanisms That
Reconsider Long-Term Prison Sentences, J. Experimental Criminology (2021).
6

Bruce Johnson & C. Ronald Huff, Public Opinion and Criminal Justice Policy Formulation, 2 Crim. Just. Pol’y
Rev. 127 (1987).
7

See Berryessa, supra note 5.

8

Jelani Jefferson Exum, From Warfare to Welfare: Reconceptualizing Drug Sentencing During the Opioid Crisis,
67 Kansas L. Rev. 941 (2018).
9

Id. at 943–49.

10

Id. at 943–45.

11

See Ilene H. Nagel, Structuring Sentencing Discretion: The New Federal Sentencing Guidelines, 80 J. Crim. L. &
Criminology 883 (1990).
12

Jefferson Exum, supra note 8, at 949–52.

13

See Michael Tonry, Remodeling American Sentencing: A Ten-Step Blueprint for Moving Past Mass Incarceration,
13 Criminology & Pub. Pol’y 503 (2014).
14

Austin et al., supra note 1, at 143.

15

See John F. Pfaff, The War on Drugs and Prison Growth: Limited Importance, Limited Legislative Options, 52
Harv. J. Legislation 173 (2015).
16

Sent’g Project, Trends in U.S. Corrections (2020), https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/trends-in-u-scorrections/ (last visited Apr. 7, 2021).
17

Jeremy Travis et al., The Growth of Incarceration in the United States: Exploring Causes and Consequences 153
(2014).
18

Id. at 152–54.

19

Id. at 336–43.

20

See Ojmarrh C. Mitchell et al., The Effectiveness of Prison for Reducing Drug Offender Recidivism: A Regression
Discontinuity Analysis, 13 J. Experimental Criminology 1 (2017).
21

See Cassia Spohn & David Holleran, The Effect of Imprisonment on Recidivism Rates of Felony Offenders: A
Focus on Drug Offenders, 40 Criminology 329 (2002).
22

The War on Drugs: Wasting Billions and Undermining Economies,
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/uploads/3c462250-a060-4497-8ae2-cb26dcee6dd4/war-drugs-wastingbillions-undermining-economies-20130208.pdf (last visited Apr. 7, 2021).
23

Jefferson Exum, supra note 8, at 949–52.

24

Travis et al., supra note 17, at 343–40.

25

Peter Reuter, Why Has US Drug Policy Changed So Little over 30 Years?, 42 Crime & Just. 75–140 (2013).

26

Don Steman, Beyond the War: The Evolving Nature of the U.S. Approach to Drugs, 11 Harv. L. & Pol’y Rev. 375
(2017).

15

27

S.B. 2136, Reg. Sess. (Miss. 2008), http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2008/html/SB/21002199/SB2136CS. htm.
28

Marc Mauer, Long-Term Sentences: Time to Reconsider the Scale of Punishment, 87 UMKC L. Rev. 116 (2018).

29

Jefferson Exum, supra note 8, at 957.

30

See Michael Tonry, Making American Sentencing Just, Humane, and Effective, 46 Crime & Just. 441 (2017).

31

Fed. Bur. Prisons, Inmate Statistics: Offenses, https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp
(last updated Feb. 20, 2020).
32

Austin et al., supra note 1, at 143.

33

See Paul J. Larkin, Clemency, Parole, Good-Time Credits, and Crowded Prisons: Reconsidering Early Release,
11 Geo. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 1 (2013); Colleen M. Berryessa, “Second Chance” Mechanisms as a First Step to Ending
the War on Drugs, 21 Am. J. Bioethics 52 (2021).
34

Renaud, supra note 5.

35

Id.; see Berryessa, supra note 5.

36

Id.

37

See Margaret Colgate Love, Obama’s Clemency Legacy, 29 Federal Sent’g Rep. 271 (2017).

38

Mauer, supra note 28, at 116.

39

See Derek M. Cohen, Justice, Not Jailbreak: The Context and Consequence of the First Step Act, 14 Victims &
Offenders 1084 (2019).
40

Fed. Bur. Prisons, An Overview of the First Step Act, https://www.bop.gov/inmates/fsa/overview.jsp (last visited
Apr. 7, 2021).
41

Lauren-Brooke Eisen & Juliene James, Reallocating Justice Resources, Vera Institute of Justice (2012),
https://www.vera.org/downloads/Publications/reallocating-justice-resources-a-review-of-2011-state-sentencingtrends/legacy_downloads/reallocating-justice-resources.pdf (last visited Apr. 7, 2021).
42

See Mauer, supra note 28; Kyle C. Barry, Data for Progress, Policies & Polling on Reducing Excessive Prison
Terms (2020), https://www.dataforprogress.org/memos/reducing-excessive-prison-terms (last visited Apr. 7, 2021);
Renaud, supra note 5; see Berryessa, supra note 33.
43

See Michael Tonry, Thinking About Crime: Sense and Sensibility in American Penal Culture (2006).

44

See Will Jennings et al., Penal Populism and the Public Thermostat: Crime, Public Punitiveness, and Public
Policy, 30 Governance 463 (2016).
45

See Johnson & Huff, supra note 6.

46

Pew Research Center—U.S. Politics & Policy, America’s New Drug Policy Landscape (2020),
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/04/02/americas-new-drug-policy-landscape/ (last visited Apr. 7, 2021).
47

The Mellman Group & Public Opinion Strategies, National Survey Key Findings – Federal Sentencing &
Prisons,(2016),
https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2016/02/national_survey_key_findings_federal_sentencing_prisons.pdf
(last visited Apr. 7, 2021).
48
Maryland Statewide Survey, Mellman Group & Public Opinion Strategies (2016), https://www.pewtrusts.org//media/assets/2018/02/maryland_statewide_survey_2016.pdf? (last visited Apr. 7, 2021).
49

Oklahoma Statewide Survey, Mellman Group & Public Opinion Strategies (2017),
https://www.pewtrusts.org/~/media/assets/2018/02/oklahoma_statewide_survey_2017.pdf (last visited Apr. 7,
2021).
50

Berryessa, supra note 5.

16

51

See Brandon K. Applegate et al., Assessing Public Support for Three-Strikes-and-You’re-Out Laws: Global versus
Specific Attitudes, 42 Crime & Delinq. 517 (1996); Joan Petersilia, Prisoner Reentry: Public Safety and
Reintegration Challenges, 81 Prison J. 360 (2001).
52

See Austin et al., supra note 1; Robert J. MacCoun & Peter Reuter, Drug War Heresies Learning from Other
Vices, Times, and Places (2001).
53

See Paul H. Robinson & John M. Darley, The Utility of Desert, 91 Nw. L. Rev. 453 (1997).

54

Id. at 485.

55

Id. at 488–97.

56

Berryessa, supra note 5.

57

Austin et al., supra note 1, at 149–54.

58

Id. at 154.

59

Renaud, supra note 5.

60

Berryessa, supra note 5.

61

Barry, supra note 42.

62

Id.

63

Berryessa, supra note 5.

64

See Julian V. Roberts, Listening to the Crime Victim: Evaluating Victim Input at Sentencing and Parole, 38 Crime
& Just. 347 (2009).
65

Corey Call & Jill A. Gordon, Support for Current Sex Offender Management Policies: A National Survey of the
Perceptions of Professionals, 41 Am. J. Crim. Just. 834 (2016).
66

Applegate et al., supra note 51; Petersilia, supra note 51.

67

See Renaud, supra note 5; Mauer, supra note 28.

68

See Jennings, supra note 44.

69

Austin et al., supra note 1, at 149–50.

70

See Molly Connor, From First Steps to Second Chances: Addressing Mass Incarceration in State Prisons, 95
Notre Dame L. Rev. 1699 (2019).
71

Federal Docket, Updated Compilation of Compassionate Release Grants (2020),
https://thefederaldocket.com/updated-compilation-of-compassionate-release-grants/ (last visited Apr. 8, 2021).
72

Human Rights Watch, Revoked: How Probation and Parole Feed Mass Incarceration in the United States (2020),
https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/07/31/revoked/how-probation-and-parole-feed-mass-incarceration-united-states
(last visited Apr. 8, 2021).
73

Andrew Daniller, Pew Research Center, Two-Thirds of Americans Support Marijuana Legalization (2020),
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/ (last visited Apr. 8,
2021).
74

Id.

75

Pew Research Center, Public Views of Marijuana—Legalization, Decriminalization, Concerns (2014),
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/04/02/section-2-views-of-marijuana-legalization-decriminalizationconcerns/ (last visited Apr. 8, 2021).
76

Stella Resko et al., Understanding Public Attitudes Toward Cannabis Legalization: Qualitative Findings from a
Statewide Survey, 54 Substance Use & Misuse 1247 (2019).
77

Mark Cooney & Callie Harbin Burt, Less Crime, More Punishment, 114 Am. J. Sociology 494 (2008).

17

78

Bur. Just. Statistics, Drug Law Violations, https://www.bjs.gov/content/dcf/ptrpa.cfm (last visited Apr. 8, 2021).

79

Id.

80

Austin et al., supra note 1, at 154.

81

Paul R. Brewer & Kimberly Gross, Values, Framing, and Citizens Thoughts About Policy Issues: Effects on
Content and Quantity, 26 Pol. Psychol. 930 (2005).
82

Id.

83

Robinson & Darley, supra note 53.

84

See Ian Loader & Richard Sparks, What Is to Be Done with Public Criminology?, 9 Criminology & Pub. Pol’y
771 (2010).
85

Arie Freiberg & Karen Gelb, Penal Populism, Sentencing Councils and Sentencing Policy 45 (2013).

86

See Uwe Engel, Improving Survey Methods: Lessons from Recent Research (2015).

87

See John Rappaport, Some Doubts About Democratizing Criminal Justice, 87 U. Chi. L. Rev. 711 (2020); Jocelyn
Simon, The Place of “The People” in Criminal Procedure, 119 Colum. L. Rev. 249 (2019).
88

See Mauer, supra note 28.

89

See Berryessa, supra note 33.