Sentencing Project the Expanding Use of Life Sentences in America 2009

• Topics: Sentencing

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

THE

SENTENCING

~~~~~~:o~

No Exit
The Expanding Use of Life Sentences
in America
Ashley Nellis and Ryan S. King
July 2009

For further information:
The Sentencing Project
514 Tenth St. NW
Suite 1000
Washington, D.C. 20004
(202) 628-0871

This report was written by Ashley Nellis, Ph.D., Research Analyst,
and Ryan S. King, Policy Analyst, of The Sentencing Project.
The Sentencing Project is a national non-profit organization engaged
in research and advocacy on criminal justice policy issues.
The Sentencing Project is supported by the generosity of individual
contributors and foundations, including:

www.sentencingproject.org

Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation
Criminal Justice Policy Foundation
Ford Foundation
Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel Foundation
Herb Block Foundation
JK Irwin Foundation
Ralph E. Ogden Foundation
Open Society Institute
Public Welfare Foundation
Anonymous Donor at Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors
Elizabeth B. and Arthur E. Roswell Foundation
Sandler Foundation
Anonymous Fund of Tides Foundation
Restorative Justice Program, General Board of Global Ministries,
United Methodist Church
Wallace Global Fund

Copyright © 2009 by The Sentencing Project. Reproduction of this
document in full or part in print or electronic format only by permission of
The Sentencing Project.

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

INTRODUCTION

here are more than 2.3 million people incarcerated in prisons or jails
throughout the United States. This figure that has been growing steadily
since 1972 and represents a 600% increase over this period. The United

States has achieved the dubious distinction of having the highest rate of incarceration
in the world by enacting three decades of “tough on crime” policies that have made
little impact on crime but have had profound consequences for American society.
These policies have been wide-ranging and include such features as an increased
emphasis on drug enforcement, determinate sentences, and most significantly, a
vastly expanded use of imprisonment. Simultaneously, there has been a diminishing
of the value placed on the principle of rehabilitation that originally guided the
nation’s correctional philosophy.
Despite the adoption of a variety of alternatives to incarceration and a renewed
consideration of expanding parole for certain non-violent, low-level offenses,
developments since the 1970s have established a set of policies that extend
considerably the length of time that people spend in prison. These include
mandatory sentences, “truth in sentencing,” and cutbacks in parole release. These
initiatives apply not only to persons convicted of violent offenses, but also mandate
long periods of incarceration for persons identified as habitual offenders and those
convicted of certain drug offenses.
Foremost among the changes affecting the prison population in recent years are laws
and policies regarding the expansion of life sentences. Even though life sentences ave
existed for a long time, historically they were generally indeterminate, with the
possibility of parole to serve as an incentive for behavioral modifications and
improvements. Over the past few decades, legislators have dramatically expanded the
types of offenses that result in a life sentence and established a wide range of habitual
offender laws that subject a growing proportion of defendants to potential life terms

PAGE 2

NO EXIT| THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

of incarceration. At the same time, the restricting of parole, notably with the
increase in life without parole sentences, paired with a steady flow of life sentenced
admissions to prison, results in persons serving a life sentence constituting a rapidly
expanding proportion of the incarcerated population.
Policy considerations for persons sentenced to life are very different than for persons
who have been convicted of lesser offenses. For individuals who have taken lives or
who pose a serious threat to public safety, incapacitation as a means of assuring
public safety is a legitimate and compelling concern at sentencing. However, the
issue of life sentences is far more complex and cannot be regarded as merely strict
sentencing for a deserving population of persons convicted of serious offenses.
In this report, we assess the dramatic increase in the imposition of life sentences in
the context of incapacitation and public safety, fiscal costs, goals of punishment, and
the appropriateness of life sentences for juveniles. 1 We also report on trends in the
life sentenced population since our previous report analyzing 2002/2003 data. 2
Life in prison is of great consequence both to the individuals who receive these
sentences and to the society that imposes them. The findings in this report
demonstrate that the life sentenced population has expanded dramatically in recent
decades, along with the explosion of the prison population overall.
While persons serving life sentences include those who present a serious threat to
public safety, they also include those for whom the length of sentence is
questionable. In particular, life without parole sentences often represent a misuse of

The term “life sentence” is used in a variety of ways and consequently there is much public confusion regarding its

meaning. While the intuitive definition of a life sentence is a prison term for the remainder of one’s natural life, in fact
the term also includes various indeterminate sentences, or sentences whose length can be reduced by commutation,
parole, or pardon. The term “life without parole” refers to sentences where parole is not possible. In this report, we do
not consider sentences that would equate to one’s life (e.g., a sentence of 90 years, after which one might be eligible for
parole). Figures presented here are therefore conservative estimates of the number of people those who will spend the
rest of their lives in prison.
2

Mauer, M., King, R. S., and Young, M. C. (2004). The Meaning of Life: Long Prison Sentences in Context. Washington,

D.C.: The Sentencing Project.

PAGE 3

NO EXIT| THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

limited correctional resources and discount the capacity for personal growth and
rehabilitation that comes with the passage of time. This report challenges the
supposition that all life sentences are necessary to keep the public safe, compared to a
term of fewer years. We conclude with recommendations for changes in law, policy
and practice which would, if adopted, address the principal deficiencies in the
sentencing of people to life in prison.

Key Findings
•

140,610 individuals are serving life sentences, representing one of every 11
people (9.5%) in prison.

•

Twenty-nine percent (41,095) of the individuals serving life sentences have
no possibility of parole.

•

The number of individuals serving life without parole sentences increased by
22% from 33,633 to 41,095 between 2003 and 2008. This is nearly four
times the rate of growth of the parole-eligible life sentenced population.

•

In five states—Alabama, California, Massachusetts, Nevada, and New
York—at least 1 in 6 people in prison are serving a life sentence.

•

The highest proportion of life sentences relative to the prison population is in
California, where 20% of the prison population is serving a life sentence, up
from 18.1% in 2003. Among these 34,164 life sentences, 10.8% are life
without parole.

•

Racial and ethnic minorities serve a disproportionate share of life sentences.
Two-thirds of people with life sentences (66.4%) are nonwhite, reaching as
high as 83.7% of the life sentenced population in the state of New York.

•

There are 6,807 juveniles serving life sentences; 1,755, or 25.8%, of whom
are serving sentences of life without parole.

•

Seventy-seven percent of juveniles sentenced to life are youth of color.

•

There are 4,694 women and girls serving life sentences; 28.4% of females
sentenced to life do not have the possibility of parole.

PAGE 4

NO EXIT| THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

GROWTH IN LIFE SENTENCES
Every state has provisions for sentencing people to prison for the remainder of their
lives for some types of crimes. While life and life without parole (LWOP) sentences
have long been incorporated into sentencing policy, the frequency with which they
have been used has increased dramatically during the last 20 years as sentencing
statutes, prosecutorial practices, and parole policies have evolved in a more punitive
direction. In particular, support for the expansion of LWOP sentences grew out of
the same mistrust of the judicial process that birthed sentencing guidelines,
mandatory minimums, and “truth-in-sentencing” laws to restrict parole eligibility.
These policies have often been politically inspired and fueled by accounts of people
sentenced to life, often for violent crimes, being released on parole within a decade.
Public dissatisfaction was part of a larger movement toward more legislative control
of the criminal justice process at the expense of the discretion of judges and parole
boards. The expansion of LWOP sentencing in particular was intended to ensure
that “life means life.”
While every state provides for life sentences, there is a broad range in the severity and
implementation of the statutes (See Table 1). In six states – Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana,
Maine, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota – and the federal system, all life sentences
are imposed without the possibility of parole. 3 Only Alaska provides the possibility
of parole for all life sentences, while the remaining 43 states have laws that permit
sentencing most defendants to life with or without parole.
In the case of life sentences with the possibility of parole, the range of time that must
be served prior to eligibility for release varies greatly, from under 10 years in Utah

Parole is no longer an option in the federal system, as of 1987. The 886 individuals serving parole-eligible life

sentences in the federal system were sentenced before parole was eliminated in 1987.

PAGE 5

NO EXIT| THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

and California to 40 and 50 years in Colorado and Kansas. 4 The median length of
time served prior to parole eligibility nationally is in the range of 25 years. 5
However, eligibility does not equate to release and, owing to the reticence of review
boards and governors, it has become increasingly difficult for persons serving a life
sentence to be released on parole.
TABLE 1: LIFE SENTENCING POLICY IN THE UNITED STATES
LIFE SENTENCES AND LWOP SENTENCES

ONLY LWOP

ONLY PAROLE-ELIGIBLE LIFE

SENTENCES

Alabama

Nevada

Illinois

Arizona

New Hampshire

Iowa

Arkansas

New Jersey

Louisiana

California

New Mexico

Maine

Colorado

New York

Pennsylvania

Connecticut

North Carolina

South Dakota

Delaware

North Dakota

Florida

Ohio

Georgia

Oklahoma

Hawaii

Oregon

Idaho

Rhode Island

Indiana

South Carolina

Kansas

Tennessee

Kentucky

Texas

Maryland

Vermont

Massachusetts

Virginia

Michigan

Washington

Minnesota

West Virginia

Mississippi

Wisconsin

Missouri

Wyoming

Alaska

Federal

Montana
Nebraska

Advisory Committee on Geriatric and Seriously Ill Inmates (2005). A Report of the Advisory Committee on Geriatric

and Seriously Ill Inmates. Harrisburg: Joint State Government Committee of the General Assembly of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
5

Ibid.

PAGE 6

NO EXIT| THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

Life Sentences, 2008
Our national survey of departments of correction documented 140,610 persons
serving a life term in 2008. One in 11 persons in a state or federal prison is now
serving a life sentence. Over the last quarter-century, the number of individuals
serving life sentences has more than quadrupled from 34,000 in 1984 (See Figure 1).
Nearly 97% of those serving a life sentence are men, while women comprise 4,694
(3.3%) of persons serving a life sentence.
FIGURE 1: GROWTH IN LIFE SENTENCED POPULATION, 1984-2008

160,000
140,610
140,000

127,677

132,000

120,000
100,000
80,000

69,845

60,000
40,000

34,000

20,000
0
1984

1992

2003

2005

2008

Number of People Serving Life Sentences
Sources: Figures for 1984 obtained from: American Correctional Association (1984). Corrections Compendium. Vol.
3 (9). Figures for 1992 obtained from: Maguire, K., Pastore, A. L., and Flanagan, T. J. (Eds.) (1993). Sourcebook of
Criminal Justice Statistics 1992. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Figures for 2003 obtained from:
Mauer, M., King, R., and Young, M. (2004). The Meaning of ‘Life’: Long Prison Sentences in Context. Washington,
D.C.: The Sentencing Project. Figures for 2005 obtained from: Liptak, A. (2005, October 5). Serving Life with No
Chance at Redemption. The New York Times. Data for 2008 collected from each state’s department of corrections by
The Sentencing Project.

The scope of life sentences varies greatly by state (See Table 2). In 16 states, at least
10% of people in prison are serving a life sentence. In Alabama, California,
Massachusetts, Nevada and New York, at least 1 in 6 people in prison are serving a
life sentence. On the other end of the spectrum, there are 10 states in which 5% or
fewer of those in prison are serving a life sentence, including less than 1% in Indiana.

PAGE 7

NO EXIT| THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

TABLE 2: LIFE POPULATION AND LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE POPULATION
STATE
Alabama

LIFE POPULATION

% OF PRISON
POPULATION

LWOP

% OF PRISON
POPULATION

5,087

17.3%

1,413

4.8%

Alaska

229

6.6%

Arizona

1,433

3.7%

208

0.5%

Arkansas

1,376

9.5%

541

3.7%

California

34,164

20.0%

3,679

2.2%

Colorado

2,136

9.3%

464

2.0%

Connecticut

430

2.2%

334

1.7%

Delaware

526

13.8%

318

8.3%

Florida

10,784

11.3%

6,424

6.7%

Georgia

7,193

13.1%

486

0.9%

Hawaii

412

11.6%

1.3%

Idaho

523

8.3%

102

1.6%

Illinois

103

Unk.

103

Unk.

Indiana

250

0.9%

0.4%

Iowa

616

7.1%

616

7.1%

Kansas

806

9.2%

0.0%

Kentucky

1,073

7.8%

0.5%

Louisiana

4,161

10.9%

4,161

10.9%

2.6%

2.4%

Maryland

2,311

9.9%

321

1.4%

Massachusetts

1,760

17.1%

902

8.7%

Michigan

5,010

10.0%

3,384

6.7%

Minnesota

496

5.4%

0.5%

Mississippi

1,914

8.5%

1,230

5.4%

Missouri

2,582

8.7%

938

3.1%

Montana

171

5.0%

1.5%

Nebraska

515

11.8%

213

4.9%

2,217

16.4%

450

3.3%

177

6.1%

2.2%

New Jersey

1,257

4.8%

0.2%

New Mexico

391

6.2%

0.0%

11,147

18.0%

190

0.3%

2,390

6.1%

1,215

3.1%

Maine

Nevada
New Hampshire

New York
North Carolina

PAGE 8

NO EXIT| THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

TABLE 2: LIFE POPULATION AND LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE POPULATION, continued
STATE
North Dakota

LIFE POPULATION

% OF PRISON
POPULATION

LWOP

% OF PRISON
POPULATION

2.8%

0.8%

Ohio

5,202

10.4%

216

0.4%

Oklahoma

2,135

8.5%

623

2.5%

719

5.3%

143

1.1%

Pennsylvania

4,349

9.4%

4,343

9.4%

Rhode Island

182

4.8%

0.8%

South Carolina

2,056

8.4%

777

3.2%

South Dakota

169

5.1%

169

5.1%

Tennessee

2,020

10.5%

260

1.3%

Texas

8,558

6.1%

0.1%

Utah

Unk.

Vermont

4.1%

0.6%

Virginia

2,145

5.8%

774

2.1%

Washington

1,967

12.5%

542

3.4%

West Virginia

612

10.4%

251

4.3%

Wisconsin

1,072

4.8%

171

0.8%

Wyoming

197

9.5%

1.0%

FEDERAL

5,400

2.7%

4,514

2.2%

140,610

9.5%

41,095

2.8%

Oregon

TOTAL

Notes: Illinois officials did not provide usable data on life sentences or LWOP sentences for 2008. In 2003, the year
in which data were previously collected for our report, The Meaning of Life, Illinois reported 1,291 individuals serving
life sentences, all of whom were LWOP. The prison population reported at this time was 43,418. The figure of 103
juveniles serving LWOP was confirmed through an independent report in 2008. The current number of adult life
sentences and LWOP sentences in Illinois could not be determined. Utah officials did not provide data on life
aentences.

Life without Parole
Substantially longer sentences and the restriction or abolition of parole are two key
contributing factors to the rapidly expanding prison population. This is perhaps best
illustrated by the use of LWOP sentences. In 2008, 41,095 people, or 1 in 36
persons in prison, were serving a sentence of life without parole. Women comprise
slightly more than 3% of this group (1,333). As with the overall population of life
sentences, the number of people serving LWOP has increased dramatically in recent

PAGE 9

NO EXIT| THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

years. In 1992, 12,453 persons – 1 in 68 – were serving LWOP sentences. 6 In the
intervening 16 years that figure has tripled (See Figure 2).
FIGURE 2: GROWTH IN LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE POPULATION, 1992-2008
45,000
41,095
40,000
35,000
33,633
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
12,453
10,000
5,000
0
1992

2003

2008

Number of LWOP Sentences
Sources: Figures for 1992 obtained from: Maguire, K., Pastore, A. L., and Flanagan, T. J. (Eds.) (1993).
Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1992. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Figures from 2003
obtained from: Mauer, M., King, R.S., and Young, M. (2004). The Meaning of ‘Life’: Long Prison Sentences in
Context. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Figures for 2008 collected from each state’s Department of
Corrections by The Sentencing Project.

As with the overall life sentenced population, the use of LWOP varies greatly among
states. In Louisiana, a state in which all life sentences lack the possibility of parole,
one of every nine (10.9%) people in prison is serving an LWOP sentence.
Pennsylvania, another LWOP-only state, incarcerates 9.4% of its prison population
for the rest of their lives. Nationally, there are nine states in which more than 5% of
persons in prison are serving an LWOP sentence. On the other end of the spectrum,
15 states incarcerate less than 1% of persons in prison for LWOP.

LWOP data are unavailable for 1984.

PAGE 10

NO EXIT| THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

States also vary in the relative proportions of parole-eligible life sentences and
LWOP. For example, in California and New York, the states with the highest
proportion of persons serving life sentences, only 2.2% and 0.3% respectively of
incarcerated persons are serving a sentence of LWOP. In 16 states, 10% or more of
the prison population is serving a life sentence, yet in 11 of these states, the LWOP
population comprises less than 5% of the prison population. This is largely a
reflection of statutory law and prosecutorial practices that deemphasize LWOP and
underscores the local contours of life sentencing practices.

Race/Ethnicity and Life Sentences
This study represents the first national collection of state-level life sentence data by
race and ethnicity. Nationally, nearly half (48.3%) of the life-sentenced population
is African American, comprising 67,918 people (See Table 3). The black proportion
of persons serving a life sentence is considerably higher than the black representation
in the general prison population (37.5%).
The portion of African Americans serving life sentences varies widely across states, as
seen in Table 3. In 13 states and the federal system, African Americans comprise
more than 60% of persons serving a life sentence.

PAGE 11

NO EXIT| THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

TABLE 3: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION OF LIFE SENTENCED POPULATION
STATE
Alabama

LIFE

BLACK

POPULATION

WHITE

HISPANIC

5,087

3,342

65.7%

1,732

34.0%

Unk.

Alaska

229

10.5%

132

57.6%

1.7%

Arizona

1,433

285

19.9%

670

46.8%

392

27.4%

Arkansas

1,376

728

52.9%

630

45.8%

0.9%

California

34,164

12,036

35.2%

8,163

23.9%

11,182

32.7%

Colorado

2,136

432

20.2%

1,064

49.8%

569

26.6%

Connecticut

430

225

52.3%

123

28.6%

18.6%

Delaware

526

334

63.5%

190

36.1%

Unk.

Florida

10,784

5,660

52.5%

4,753

44.1%

301

2.8%

Georgia

7,193

5,103

70.9%

2,051

28.5%

Unk.

Hawaii

412

6.1%

23.1%

3.4%

Idaho

523

2.1%

425

81.3%

12.6%

Illinois

103

71.8%

18.4%

9.7%

Indiana

250

34.4%

153

61.2%

3.6%

Iowa

616

156

25.3%

409

66.4%

5.5%

Kansas

806

338

41.9%

372

46.2%

8.4%

Kentucky

1,073

312

29.1%

747

69.6%

0.7%

Louisiana

4,161

3,049

73.3%

1,105

26.6%

Unk.

3.4%

94.8%

0.0%

Maryland

2,311

1,773

76.7%

508

22.0%

Unk.

Massachusetts

1,760

561

31.9%

827

47.0%

318

18.1%

Michigan

5,010

3,208

64.0%

1,655

33.0%

1.9%

Minnesota

496

173

34.9%

273

55.0%

Unk.

Mississippi

1,914

1,387

72.5%

516

27.0%

0.4%

Missouri

2,582

1,370

53.1%

1,170

45.3%

0.8%

Montana

171

1.8%

137

80.1%

4.7%

Nebraska

515

165

32.0%

280

54.4%

7.6%

2,217

509

23.0%

1,340

60.4%

246

11.1%

177

Unk.

New Jersey

1,257

787

62.6%

356

28.3%

3.7%

New Mexico

391

11.3%

153

39.1%

170

43.5%

11,147

6,167

55.3%

1,814

16.3%

2,937

26.3%

Maine

Nevada
New Hampshire

New York

PAGE 12

NO EXIT| THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

TABLE 3: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION OF LIFE SENTENCED POPULATION, continued
STATE

LIFE

BLACK

POPULATION

WHITE

HISPANIC
%

North Carolina

2,390

1,511

63.2%

786

32.9%

1.0%

North Dakota

2.5%

82.5%

2.5%

Ohio

5,202

2,741

52.7%

2,304

44.3%

103

2.0%

Oklahoma

2,135

655

30.7%

1,200

56.2%

4.6%

719

11.1%

544

75.7%

8.1%

Pennsylvania

4,349

2,742

63.0%

1,200

27.6%

356

8.2%

Rhode Island

182

29.1%

48.4%

19.8%

South Carolina

2,056

1,318

64.1%

717

34.9%

0.5%

South Dakota

169

6.5%

122

72.2%

1.2%

Tennessee

2,020

1,007

49.9%

975

48.3%

1.2%

Texas

8,558

3,721

43.5%

2,893

33.8%

1,886

22.0%

Utah

Unk.

Vermont

3.4%

85.4%

Unk.

Virginia

2,145

1,334

62.2%

786

36.6%

0.6%

Washington

1,967

315

16.0%

1,303

66.2%

207

10.5%

West Virginia

612

14.5%

494

80.7%

0.3%

Wisconsin

1,072

466

43.5%

478

44.6%

9.0%

Wyoming

197

5.1%

154

78.2%

10.7%

FEDERAL

5,400

3,494

64.7%

962

17.8%

738

13.7%

140,610

67,918

48.3%

47,032

33.4%

20,309

14.4%

Oregon

TOTAL

Notes: Individuals identified as “Other” not included in this table. Race and ethnicity were not available for all
individuals. Illinois officials did not provide usable data on life sentences or LWOP sentences for 2008. In 2003, the
year in which data were previously collected for our report, The Meaning of Life, Illinois reported 1,291 individuals
serving life sentences, all of whom were LWOP. The prison population was reported at this time was 43,418. The figure
of 103 juveniles serving LWOP was confirmed through an independent report in 2008 and is included in this table. The
current number of adult life sentences and LWOP sentences in Illinois could not be determined. Utah officials did not
provide data on life sentences. New Hampshire does not maintain race/ethnicity data for its adult population but does
have this information for juveniles serving a life sentence and JLWOPs. Please see Tables 8 and 9 for this information.

The issue of racial disparity becomes even more pronounced in examining LWOP
sentences. As mentioned, African Americans comprise 48.3% of those serving life
sentences; yet, as seen in Table 4, while 45% of the parole-eligible population is
African American, blacks comprise 56.4% of the LWOP population.

PAGE 13

NO EXIT| THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

TABLE 4: NATIONAL LIFE SENTENCED POPULATION, BY RACE AND ETHNICITY
RACE/ETHNICITY

LIFE
SENTENCES

LWOP
#

PAROLE ELIGIBLE
%

WHITE

47,032

13,751

33.5%

33,281

33.4%

BLACK

67,918

23,181

56.4%

44,737

45.0%

HISPANIC

20,309

3,052

7.4%

17,257

17.3%

OTHER

5,174

1,048

2.6%

4,126

4.1%

140,610

41,095

TOTAL LIFE SENTENCES

99,515

Note: Race and ethnicity were not available for all individuals. Therefore, totals do not add up to 100%.

These figures are consistent with a larger pattern in the criminal justice system in
which African Americans are represented at an increasingly disproportionate rate
across the continuum from arrest through incarceration. African Americans
comprise 12% of the general population but represent 28% of total arrests and 38%
of persons convicted of a felony in a state court and in state prison. These disparities
increase with the severity of punishment.
It is more difficult to identify the involvement of Hispanics in the criminal justice
system due to frequent state-level data shortcomings; often, the category of ethnicity
is combined with race, resulting in a serious undercount of the national Hispanic
population. Nevertheless, when counted accurately, Hispanics are usually shown to
be overrepresented in various stages of the criminal justice system. For instance, even
though Hispanics represent 15% of the general population, 22.3% of those in prison
are Hispanic. 7 In our survey of individuals serving life sentences, we find that the
20,309 Hispanics serving a life sentence comprise 14.4% of all persons serving a life
sentence, a figure lower than their proportion of the general prison population. 8
7

U.S. Census Bureau (2007). American Community Survey Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2007. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau; West, H.C. (2008). Prisoners in 2007. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. .
8

Some states’ department of corrections only collect and report race data but not ethnicity data. Because of this we

encountered challenges in ascertaining the true representation of Hispanics among state life sentenced populations. In
particular, the following states do not report life sentence data for Hispanics: Alabama, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland,
New Hampshire, and Vermont. Please see the Methodology section for more discussion of the challenges with ethnicity
data.

PAGE 14

NO EXIT| THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

Hispanics comprise only 7.4% of LWOP sentences. Yet, these figures may be
misleading, as 6 states do not collect ethnicity data from their prison population.
Among states that did report ethnicity information, there are five in which 25% or
more of the LWOP population is Hispanic – Arizona, California, Colorado, Texas,
and Wyoming. Except for Wyoming, these are states that also have a sizeable
Hispanic population. Meanwhile, in 30 states, the representation of the LWOP
population that is Hispanic is less than 1 in 10.
TABLE 5: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION OF LWOP POPULATION
STATE
Alabama

LWOP
POPULATION

BLACK LWOP
#

WHITE LWOP
#

HISPANIC LWOP
#

1,413

963

68.2%

447

31.6%

Unk.

Alaska

0.0%

Arizona

208

19.2%

44.2%

32.7%

Arkansas

541

305

56.4%

230

42.5%

0.6%

California

3,679

1,332

36.2%

960

26.1%

1040

28.3%

Colorado

464

143

30.8%

167

36.0%

134

28.9%

Connecticut

334

170

50.9%

28.7%

19.8%

Delaware

318

207

65.1%

109

34.3%

Unk.

Florida

6,424

3,615

56.3%

2,581

40.2%

196

3.1%

Georgia

486

359

73.9%

127

26.1%

Unk.

Hawaii

4.3%

21.3%

8.5%

Idaho

102

2.0%

87.3%

5.9%

Illinois

103

71.8%

18.4%

9.7%

Indiana

31.3%

63.5%

4.2%

616

156

25.3%

409

66.4%

5.5%

Kansas

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Kentucky

31.8%

63.6%

3.0%

Louisiana

4,161

3,049

73.3%

1,105

26.6%

Unk.

Maine

3.7%

94.4%

0.0%

Maryland

321

224

69.8%

27.4%

Unk.

Massachusetts

902

307

34.0%

424

47.0%

142

15.7%

3,384

2,264

66.9%

1,040

30.7%

1.3%

Minnesota

35.4%

52.1%

Unk.

Mississippi

1,230

877

71.3%

346

28.1%

0.3%

938

505

53.8%

419

44.7%

0.3%

Iowa

Michigan

Missouri

PAGE 15

NO EXIT| THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

TABLE 5: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION OF LWOP POPULATION, continued
STATE

LWOP POPULATION

BLACK LWOP
#

WHITE LWOP
#

HISPANIC LWOP
#

Montana

0.0%

74.5%

2.0%

Nebraska

213

33.8%

111

52.1%

8.5%

Nevada

450

15.8%

309

68.7%

7.8%

New Hampshire

Unk.

New Jersey

69.6%

28.3%

2.2%

New Mexico

0.0%

190

118

62.1%

16.8%

18.9%

1,215

761

62.6%

389

32.0%

1.5%

New York
North Carolina
North Dakota

9.1%

63.6%

9.1%

Ohio

216

103

47.7%

105

48.6%

2.3%

Oklahoma

623

187

30.0%

343

55.1%

6.4%

Oregon

143

11.9%

108

75.5%

9.8%

Pennsylvania

4,343

2,738

63.0%

1198

27.6%

356

8.2%

Rhode Island

34.4%

50.0%

15.6%

South Carolina

777

515

66.3%

250

32.2%

0.6%

South Dakota

169

6.5%

122

72.2%

1.2%

Tennessee

260

123

47.3%

130

50.0%

1.9%

Texas

38.0%

26.8%

35.2%

Utah

Unk.

Vermont

7.7%

76.9%

Unk.

Virginia

774

478

61.8%

285

36.8%

1.0%

Washington

542

144

26.6%

319

58.9%

5.7%

West Virginia

251

14.3%

207

82.5%

0.4%

Wisconsin

171

33.9%

51.5%

8.8%

Wyoming

5.0%

45.0%

30.0%

FEDERAL

4,514

3,104

66.8%

704

15.6%

664

14.7%

41,095

23,181

56.4%

13,751

33.5%

3,052

7.4%

TOTAL

Notes: Individuals identified as “Other” not included in this table. Race and ethnicity were not available for all
individuals. Illinois officials did not provide usable data on life sentences or LWOP sentences for 2008. In 2003, the
year in which data were previously collected for our report, The Meaning of Life, Illinois reported 1,291 individuals
serving life sentences, all of whom were LWOP. The prison population was reported at this time was 43,418. The figure
of 103 juveniles serving LWOP was confirmed through an independent report in 2008. The current number of adult life
sentences and LWOP sentences in Illinois could not be determined. Utah officials did not provide data on life
sentences.

PAGE 16

NO EXIT| THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

INDIVIDUALS SERVING LIFE SENTENCES FOR
CRIMES COMMITTED AS JUVENILES9
Life in prison is the most severe punishment available for juveniles. This has been
this case since 2005 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Roper v. Simmons that
juveniles cannot be executed. Every state allows for life sentences for juveniles, and
46 states hold juveniles serving such terms. 10 There are currently 6,807 individuals
serving life sentences for crimes committed when they were a juvenile. Among these,
1,755 have a sentence of life without parole.

Juveniles Serving Life
As with persons serving life overall, there is significant statewide variation in the use
of life sentences for juveniles. Juveniles serve life sentences in nearly every state, but
more than 50% of the national population is located in five states: California
(2,623), Texas (422), Pennsylvania (345), Florida (338), and Nevada (322) (See
Table 6).

In this report, we define juveniles according to each state’s statutory definition of juvenile rather than the alternative

definition of individuals under 18. Therefore, our estimates are frequently lower than estimates that may be found
elsewhere because we exclude cases where state law automatically excludes certain youth from juvenile jurisdiction
because of their age. Our use of the term “juvenile” is used deliberately instead of the term “individuals under 18,”
though in some states, these are synonymous.
10

Indiana, Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia do not currently have any juveniles serving life sentences though state

law permits it.

PAGE 17

NO EXIT| THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

TABLE 6: JUVENILE LIFE AND JLWOP POPULATION BY STATE
JUVENILE

JUVENILE

LIFE

LWOP

POPULATION

121

Nebraska

Alaska

Arizona

149

Arkansas

JUVENILE

LIFE

LIWOP

POPULATION

Nevada

322

New Hampshire

New Jersey

California

2,623

239

New Mexico

Colorado

New York

146

Connecticut

North Carolina

Delaware

North Dakota

Florida

338

Ohio

212

Georgia

Oklahoma

Hawaii

Oregon

STATE
Alabama

STATE

Idaho

Pennsylvania

345

Illinois

103

Rhode Island

Indiana

South Carolina

Iowa

South Dakota

Kansas

Tennessee

179

Kentucky

101

Texas

422

Louisiana

133

Utah

Unk.

Vermont

Maryland

269

Virginia

107

Massachusetts

Washington

Michigan

206

152

West Virginia

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Mississippi

Wyoming

Missouri

FEDERAL

Montana

TOTAL

6,807

1,755

Maine

Notes: JLWOP is prohibited in Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and Oregon. JLWOP was eliminated in Colorado in
2005, but does not apply retroactively. Therefore, the 49 youth who were sentenced before the 2005 law was enacted
continue to serve JLWOP sentences. Utah officials did not provide data on life sentences. Illinois officials did not provide
data on life sentences of LWOP sentences. 103 juvenile LWOP prisoners were confirmed through an independent report in
2008.

PAGE 18

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

Looking at overall life sentences, we note that in four states, more than 10% of the
life population were juveniles at the time of their offense. These states are Nevada
(14.5%), Nebraska (13.2%), Maryland (11.6%), and Arizona (10.4%). (See Table 7)
TABLE 7: JUVENILES AS PERCENT OF LIFE SENTENCED POPULATION
JUVENILES AS % OF
STATE

JUVENILES AS % OF
STATE

LIFE SENTENCED
POPULATION

Nevada

14.5%

Missouri

3.4%

Nebraska

13.2%

Mississippi

3.3%

Maryland

11.6%

Oklahoma

3.2%

Arizona

10.4%

Louisiana

3.2%

Kentucky

9.4%

Florida

3.1%

Tennessee

8.9%

Wyoming

3.0%

New Hampshire

8.5%

Massachusetts

3.0%

Kansas

7.9%

Washington

2.8%

Pennsylvania

7.9%

South Carolina

2.7%

California

7.7%

Alabama

2.4%

New Mexico

7.7%

South Dakota

2.4%

North Dakota

7.5%

Colorado

2.3%

Rhode Island

6.6%

Oregon

1.9%

Wisconsin

6.3%

Hawaii

1.9%

Iowa

6.0%

North Carolina

1.9%

Delaware

5.9%

Minnesota

1.8%

Virginia

5.0%

New Jersey

1.4%

Texas

4.9%

New York

1.3%

NATIONAL

4.8%

FEDERAL

1.0%

Arkansas

4.2%

Georgia

0.1%

Connecticut

4.2%

Indiana

0.0%

Michigan

4.1%

Maine

0.0%

Ohio

4.1%

Vermont

0.0%

Idaho

4.0%

West Virginia

0.0%

Montana

3.5%

Alaska

3.5%

PAGE 19

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

Among these juvenile life sentences, 25.8% of the juveniles (1,755) are serving life
without parole. Four states comprise half of the juvenile life without parole (JLWOP)
population nationally: Pennsylvania (345, or 19.7%), followed by California (239, or
13.6%), and Michigan (152, or 8.7%), and Louisiana (133, or 7.6%).
In many of these cases, judges were not permitted to consider sentences other than
LWOP because of legislatively mandated restrictions concerning certain crimes.
Therefore, mitigating circumstances—which almost universally accompany these cases
(e.g., mental health status, history of trauma, and amenability to treatment)—are not
allowed to be considered. Researchers in the state of Washington reviewed case files for
each juvenile serving a sentence of life without parole and identified mitigating
circumstances in each of the twenty-eight cases, yet none of this information was
permitted in the court’s determination of sentence because all were mandatorily given
JLWOP. 11

Youth of Color Serving Life Sentences
Racial and ethnic disparities are pronounced at each stage of the juvenile justice system,
from referral through secure confinement. Transfer to the adult system is the stage at
which these disparities are most severe; African American youth represent 35% of
judicial waivers to criminal court and 58% of youth sent to adult prisons. 12 Our data
document that racial and ethnic disparities persist within the juvenile life sentenced
population as well. Overall, nearly half (47.3%) of juveniles sentenced to life are African
American (See Table 8).
Racial disparity in juvenile life sentences is quite severe in many states. In Alabama, 102
of the 121 persons serving life, or 84.3%, are black. In Maryland, 226 of the 269

Washington Coalition for the Just Treatment of Youth (2009). A Reexamination of Youth Involvement in the Adult Criminal

Justice System in Washington: Implications of New Findings about Juvenile Recidivism and Adolescent Brain Development. Seattle:
Columbia Legal Services.
12

National Council on Crime and Delinquency (2007). And Justice for Some: Differential Treatment of Youth of Color in the

Justice System. Oakland: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

PAGE 20

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

(84.0%) youth serving life sentences are black. And in South Carolina, 42 of the 55
(76.4%) youth in adult prisons serving life sentences are black. Finally, in the federal
system, 28 of the 52 youth serving life sentences, or 53.8%, are black. Nationally,
Hispanics represent 23.7% of juvenile life sentences, considerably higher than the
percentage of youth nationwide who are Hispanic (18.0%). 13
TABLE 8: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION OF JUVENILE LIFE POPULATION
STATE

JUVENILE LIFE

BLACK

WHITE

HISPANIC

POPULATION

121

102

84.3%

14.9%

Unk.

Alaska

25.0%

50.0%

0.0%

Arizona

149

27.5%

36.9%

28.9%

Arkansas

65.5%

32.8%

1.7%

California

2,623

826

31.5%

306

11.7%

1,185

45.2%

Colorado

30.6%

34.7%

28.6%

Connecticut

55.6%

16.7%

27.8%

Delaware

54.8%

45.2%

Unk.

Florida

338

226

66.9%

103

30.5%

2.7%

Georgia

66.7%

33.3%

Unk.

Hawaii

0.0%

12.5%

0.0%

Idaho

4.8%

81.0%

14.3%

Illinois

103

71.8%

18.4%

9.7%

Indiana

0.0%

Iowa

21.6%

64.9%

13.5%

Kansas

54.7%

23.4%

18.8%

Kentucky

101

31.7%

67.3%

0.0%

Louisiana

133

72.9%

26.3%

Unk.

0.0%

Maryland

269

226

84.0%

14.5%

Unk.

Massachusetts

30.8%

36.5%

23.1%

Michigan

206

131

63.6%

33.0%

2.4%

Alabama

Maine

Annie E. Casey Foundation (2008). The Annie E. Casey Foundation 2008 KIDS COUNT Data Book. Baltimore: Annie E.

Casey Foundation.

PAGE 21

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

TABLE 8: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION OF JUVENILE LIFE POPULATION, continued
STATE

JUVENILE LIFE

BLACK

WHITE

HISPANIC

POPULATION

Minnesota

55.6%

22.2%

Unk.

Mississippi

69.8%

28.6%

0.0%

Missouri

72.4%

25.3%

1.1%

Montana

0.0%

66.7%

33.3%

Nebraska

50.0%

45.6%

0.0%

Nevada

322

101

31.4%

144

44.7%

17.4%

New Hampshire

13.3%

86.7%

Unk.

New Jersey

52.9%

47.1%

0.0%

New Mexico

16.7%

20.0%

50.0%

New York

146

61.0%

11.0%

27.4%

North Carolina

65.2%

30.4%

0.0%

North Dakota

0.0%

33.3%

212

142

67.0%

31.1%

1.4%

Oklahoma

47.8%

33.3%

7.2%

Oregon

21.4%

78.6%

0.0%

Pennsylvania

345

231

67.0%

22.9%

9.6%

Rhode Island

25.0%

41.7%

South Carolina

76.4%

20.0%

0.0%

South Dakota

0.0%

75.0%

0.0%

Tennessee

179

122

68.2%

30.2%

1.1%

Texas

422

205

48.6%

20.1%

130

30.8%

Utah

Unk.

Vermont

0.0%

Virginia

107

81.3%

18.7%

0.0%

Washington

17.9%

53.6%

7.1%

West Virginia

0.0%

Wisconsin

44.8%

37.3%

9.0%

Wyoming

0.0%

66.7%

33.3%

FEDERAL

53.9

22.9%

17.1%

6,807

3,219

47.3%

1,547

22.7%

1,615

23.7%

Ohio

TOTAL

Notes: Individuals identified as “Other” not included in this table. JLWOP is prohibited in Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, New
Mexico, and Oregon. JLWOP was eliminated in Colorado in 2005, but does not apply retroactively. Therefore, the 49 youth who
were sentenced before the 2005 law was enacted continue to serve JLWOP sentences. Illinois officials did not provide data on
life sentences of LWOP sentences. The figure of 103 juveniles serving LWOP was confirmed through an independent report in
2008. Utah officials did not provide data on life sentences or LWOP sentences.

PAGE 22

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

Not surprisingly, racial disparity among JLWOP sentences is also very apparent.
Juveniles serving life without parole are even more disproportionately African American,
56.1% (See Table 9). In 17 states, more than 60% of the JLWOP population is African
American. In Alabama, for instance, 75 of the 89 persons serving JLWOP (84.3%) are
black, and in Maryland 15 of the 19 (78.9%) persons serving JLWOP are black. In
South Carolina, 11 of 14 persons serving JLWOP are black. In the federal system, 19 of
the 35 (54.3%) persons serving JLWOP are black. 14
TABLE 9: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION OF JLWOP POPULATION
STATE

JLWOP

BLACK

WHITE

HISPANIC

POPULATION

Alabama

84.3%

14.6%

Unk.

Alaska

0.0%

Arizona

24.0%

32.0%

36.0%

Arkansas

66.7%

33.3%

0.0%

California

239

32.2%

15.1%

100

41.8%

Colorado

30.6%

34.7%

28.6%

Connecticut

64.3%

7.1%

28.6%

Delaware

68.4%

31.6%

Unk.

Florida

61.5%

32.3%

6.3%

Georgia

0.0%

Unk.

Hawaii

0.0%

Idaho

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Illinois

103

71.8%

18.4%

9.7%

Indiana

0.0%

Iowa

21.6%

64.9%

13.5%

Kansas

0.0%

Kentucky

33.3%

50.0%

0.0%

Louisiana

133

72.9%

26.3%

Unk.

Maine

0.0%

Maryland

78.9%

21.1%

Unk.

Massachusetts

27.3%

50.0%

13.6%

Parole is no longer an option in the federal system, as of 1987. Seventeen of the 52 juvenile life sentences represent

individuals who are serving parole-eligible life sentences, since they were sentenced before parole was eliminated in 1987.

PAGE 23

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

TABLE 9: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DISTRIBUTION OF JLWOP POPULATION, continued
STATE

JLWOP

BLACK

WHITE

152

63.2%

32.9%

3.3%

Minnesota

100.0%

0.0%

Unk.

Mississippi

64.3%

35.7%

0.0%

Missouri

68.6%

31.4%

0.0%

Montana

0.0%

100.0%

0.0%

Nebraska

48.3%

0.0%

Nevada

15.9%

69.6%

7.2%

New Hampshire

25.0%

75.0%

Unk.

Michigan

HISPANIC

POPULATION

New Jersey

0.0%

New Mexico

0.0%

New York

0.0%

North Carolina

65.4%

26.9%

0.0%

North Dakota

0.0%

100.0%

Ohio

0.0%

Oklahoma

44.4%

0.0%

Oregon

0.0%

Pennsylvania

345

231

67.0%

22.9%

9.6%

Rhode Island

100.0%

0.0%

South Carolina

78.6%

7.1%

0.0%

South Dakota

0.0%

75.0%

0.0%

Tennessee

58.3%

41.7%

0.0%

Texas

66.7%

33.3%

0.0%

Utah

Unk.

Vermont

0.0%

Virginia

75.0%

25.0%

0.0%

Washington

10.7%

50.0%

10.7%

West Virginia

0.0%

Wisconsin

0.0%

50.0%

Wyoming

0.0%

FEDERAL

54.3%

25.7%

17.1%

1,755

984

56.1%

497

28.3%

205

11.7%

TOTAL

Notes: Individuals identified as “Other” not included in this table. JLWOP is prohibited in Alaska, Colorado, Kansas, New
Mexico, and Oregon. JLWOP was eliminated in Colorado in 2005, but does not apply retroactively. Therefore, the 49 youth
who were sentenced before the 2005 law was enacted continue to serve JLWOP sentences. Utah officials did not provide
data on life sentences or LWOP sentences. Illinois officials did not provide data on life sentences of LWOP sentences. The
figure of 103 juveniles serving LWOP was confirmed through an independent report in 2008.

PAGE 24

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

Girls Serving Life Sentences
Girls represent a small proportion of juvenile offenses, especially for violent offenses: in
2006, girls accounted for 29% of all juvenile arrests, 17% of violent crime index arrests,
and only 5% of arrests for juvenile homicides. 15 Girls are also transferred to the adult
court less frequently than boys. 16 These differences notwithstanding, girls are sometimes
transferred to adult court and, in some instances, given life or LWOP sentences. Our
data reveal that in 2008, there were 176 female juveniles serving life sentences.
Moreover, nearly 60% were concentrated in four states: California (64), Texas (13),
Tennessee (13), and Nevada (12). In California, 5.4% of all females serving life were
juveniles when they committed their offense.
LWOP sentences for girls are relatively rare, but there are 38 girls (representing 27.5% of
female juveniles serving life) around the nation who are currently serving life without
parole. They are concentrated in Pennsylvania (9), California (5), Iowa (4), Louisiana (4)
and Michigan (4). The sentences in these five states comprise 68.4% of the total female
JLWOP sentences in the nation.

Snyder, H. (2008). Juvenile Arrests 2006. Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Poe-Yamagata, E. and Butts, J. A. (1996). Female Offenders in the Juvenile Justice System: Statistics Summary. Washington,

D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

PAGE 25

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

POLICIES AND PRACTICES THAT DRIVE LIFE
SENTENCES
Each state’s prison population is affected by a variety of policies and practices, but some
trends in policymaking and practice have emerged to drive the life sentenced population.

Prosecutorial Discretion
There are multiple ways in which prosecutorial discretion can influence whether a
defendant may be sentenced to life, including the selection of the offense to charge, the
decision to prosecute a juvenile in the adult court system, or whether to seek a habitual
offender sentence, such as a “three-strikes” sentence. For example, in California, there is
significant interstate variation in the charging patterns of prosecutors regarding the
decision to seek a “three-strikes” sentence. This is reflected in the incarceration figures
by county of conviction. Of the 8,381 persons serving a “third-strike” sentence in
September, 2008, 3,140 were from Los Angeles County and 659 were from San Diego
County, while only 39 were from San Francisco County. While population size and
differential rates of crime may explain some of this difference, charging decisions by local
prosecutors are a critical contributing factor.

Politicizing Parole
For persons who have been sentenced to life but are parole eligible, prospects for release
have become increasingly politicized in recent years. These developments trace back to
the roots of the “tough on crime” movement as parole became a target for policymakers
by which their resolution could be measured.
In 1995, Maryland Governor Parris M. Glendening instructed the Parole Commission
to “not even recommend – to not even send to my desk – a request for murders and
rapists” unless they are suffering from a terminal illness or are “very old.”

PAGE 26

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

Former California Governor Gray Davis famously said that persons convicted for murder
will only leave prison “in a pine box.” Upon taking office in 1999, he said “If you take
someone else’s life, forget it. I see no reason to parole people who have committed an act
of murder.” And he upheld this promise, only permitting eight persons sentenced to life
to be released between 1999 and 2003.
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger then vowed to change the policies of the
Davis administration and to grant parole to more individuals recommended for release
by the parole board. In 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger permitted 72 persons serving a
life sentence to be released. However, he was criticized for these releases by victims’
rights groups and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. In the ensuing
years, including a period when Governor Schwarzenegger was facing an electoral
campaign, he only approved the release of 35 persons serving life in 2005 and 23 in
2006.
In other states, the release of persons serving a life sentence to parole has been similarly
restrictive. State such as Illinois, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania, which used to grant
release to persons on life with some regularity have drastically reduced their use of
clemency. 17 For example, in June, 2009, Governor Edward Rendell of Pennsylvania
commuted the sentence of George Gregory Orlowski, who had been serving a life
sentence for murder since 1980. 18 This commutation was only the third granted in
Pennsylvania since 1994. Between 1971 and 1994, the state averaged 12 commutations
per year. However, in the wake of a high-profile double murder committed by an
individual whose sentence had been commuted in 1994, both the Pennsylvania Board of
Pardons and subsequent governors have proven highly reluctant to recommend or grant
future commutations.
These examples illustrate the powerful way in which parole for persons serving a life
sentence has become increasingly politicized. There is a strong disincentive for a sitting
17

Mauer, King, and Young, supra note 2, pp. 6-7.

King, L. (2009, June 16) In A Rarity, Rendell Commutes a Life Sentence. The Philadelphia Inquirer.

PAGE 27

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

governor to approve the release of life-sentenced individuals. Both governors and parole
board members generally receive only negative feedback on releases (when someone
reoffends), which reinforces a reticence to grant release. Victims’ rights groups closely
monitor the process, as do other “watchdog organizations” in some states, and politicians
are vulnerable to being held accountable for any potential future transgressions of people
released on parole.
Parole for persons serving a life sentence has become a political liability, even if all
reliable indicators suggest to an independent parole review board that the individual is
suitable to be released. While the recommendation of a parole review board may be
intended to serve as a buffer for a governor should a person released on parole reoffend,
in practice this is not the case. This is perhaps no more clearly apparent than in the
1988 presidential campaign, in which it is widely held that the linking of Massachusetts
Governor and Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis with Willie Horton, a man who
was released and later convicted of kidnapping and rape while on furlough from a state
prison, doomed the campaign. In the 2008 presidential campaign, former Arkansas
Governor Mike Huckabee was criticized for the parole of a person who had been serving
a life sentence and subsequently reoffended within a year of release.
When the choice must be made between granting parole at the risk of political backlash
or denying parole, many decisionmakers will opt for the less risky option. Such
politically-driven decisions in the case of life imprisonment are frequently at crosspurposes with sound public policy.

Three-Strikes Laws
As previously noted, there is widespread variation in the use of life sentences among the
states. It often reflects the state political climate and conscious decisions by practitioners
and policymakers to emphasize or minimize the use of life sentences. For example, in
California, 1 in 5 persons serving a prison term - more than 34,000 people – will
potentially spend the remainder of his or her life incarcerated. This is nearly a tripling of
the total persons serving a life sentence since 1992.

PAGE 28

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

One of the driving forces in this change dates back to 1994 when the California
legislature established a “three-strikes” habitual offender law which, among other
provisions, mandated a sentence of 25 years to life for a third felony as long as the prior
two “strikes” were for serious or violent crimes. Unlike in other states, the California
third-strike is not required to be a serious or violent offense. By December 2008, there
were 8,409 Californians serving a third-strike sentence of 25 years to life. This represents
nearly one-quarter of all persons serving a life sentence in California. The law was
presented to the California public as targeting serious, repeat offenders. However, in
practice, less than half the persons sentenced under the law were convicted of a violent
crime as their third strike. Fifty-five percent were convicted of a non-violent offense,
including 16% for a drug offense and 30% for a property offense.
In fact, there are nearly as many people incarcerated for a third-strike for driving under
the influence (55) as there are for the most serious offense, murder (69). Less than 2% of
people serving a third-strike were convicted of murder or manslaughter. While it is safe
to assume that some of the 8,409 people convicted of serious offenses such as murder or
armed robbery would be serving life even in the absence of the three-strikes law, persons
convicted of those types of offenses represent a minority of third-strikes sentences. By
and large, the majority of individuals convicted of a third-strike offense would not be
serving a life sentence in the absence of these laws.

Ali Foroutan
Ali Foroutan is currently serving a life sentence in California under that state’s “three strikes” law.
In 2000, Foroutan was convicted of possession of 0.03 grams of methamphetamine. Since an
early age, Foroutan had abused alcohol and drugs and suffered abuse at the hands of his father
and peers. But, because of his prior felony residential burglary charges in 1990 and 1992 (neither
of which involved any violence) the sentencing court subjected Foroutan to a “third strike”
sentence of 25 years to life for the possession of methamphetamine.

PAGE 29

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

Transfer of Juveniles to Adult Court
When a life sentence is given to a juvenile, it is precipitated by a mandatory or
discretionary transfer out of juvenile court. Transferring juvenile cases to the adult court
became more common in the late 1980s and early 1990s through political responses to
rising juvenile crime. Judicial waivers, one of three mechanisms used to waive youth to
the adult system, increased by 83% between 1985 and 1994. 19 Fear-producing
statements such as that of John DiIulio’s warning that “…on the horizon…are tens of
thousands of severely morally impoverished juvenile superpredators,” 20 paved the way for
sweeping changes to juvenile crime policy that produced today’s system. At the time
DiIulio made this statement, juvenile crime was already coming down from its peak in
1994, and it has continued to decline with only slight fluctuations since.
The near doubling of juvenile cases transferred to the adult system from 7,200 in 1985
to 13,200 in 1994 has contributed to many more juveniles being given life sentences.
Since the number of such transfers has declined since then, it is possible that the number
of life sentences given to juveniles has also dropped over time, though these data are not
routinely collected. Another unknown figure is the number of youth serving “blended”
sentences, or those who are charged as adults but retained in juvenile detention until the
age of 21 or 24 years old. It is unknown how many of these youth have a life or LWOP
sentence.

The “Adult Crime, Adult Time” Perspective
Concerns over rising juvenile crime in the 1980s were elevated by media reports and illinformed warnings by policymakers that a “new breed” of especially violent youth was
emerging. Calls for action at that time were enacted and implemented quickly, sending
thousands of youth into the juvenile justice system because of harsh mandates. Catch

Snyder, H. and Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, D.C.: Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
20

DiIulio, J. (1995). The Coming of the Superpredators. The Weekly Standard.

PAGE 30

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

phrases such as “adult crime, adult time” made an impression on a fearful public, but
made for very poor policy.
Once transferred to the adult court, young people face the same sentencing options as
adults, including the possibility of sentences to life or life without parole. For some
cases, there are no sentencing options available to judges; mandatory life sentences are
required for certain crimes through state statute. In these cases, one’s young age or other
mitigating factors cannot be included in determining the appropriate sentence length.
Twenty-nine states require mandatory JLWOP sentences for at least one crime, usually
homicide. 21
Pennsylvania leads the nation in the number of youth sentenced to life without parole:
there are 345 juveniles serving life sentences in Pennsylvania. As in most states, youth of
color are overrepresented in the juvenile justice system in Pennsylvania from the point of
arrest through the point of placement. In 2007, 39.9% of juveniles arrested in
Pennsylvania were African American. Among Pennsylvania’s youth in detention, 53.9%
are African American and nearly 70% of the JLWOP population is comprised of youth
of color.
Some children serving life sentences have committed heinous and gruesome acts; it is a
murder conviction that typically prompts the sentence of life or life without parole for
juveniles. For especially violent acts, long-term incarceration can be the most
appropriate option for them as well as for public safety goals. However, a parole hearing,
offered at regularly scheduled intervals, would provide the appropriate venue at which to
determine which individuals should remain incarcerated and which have been
sufficiently reformed and demonstrate the maturity to warrant release.

Human Rights Watch/Amnesty International (2005). The Rest of Their Lives: Life without Parole for Child Offenders on the

United States. San Francisco: Human Rights Watch.

PAGE 31

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

Joe Sullivan
Many, but not all, children serving life without parole have committed acts of murder. One such
exception is the case of Joe Sullivan, now 33 years old and serving an LWOP sentence in Florida
for a crime committed when he was 13 years old.
Joe Sullivan, who is severely mentally disabled, was convicted of sexual battery. A co-defendant in
the offense, an older boy, was given a shorter sentence and served his time in juvenile detention.
The lawyer who represented Sullivan during his one-day trial has since had his legal license
suspended. Finally, Sullivan is now physically disabled because of multiple sclerosis and has
been confined to a wheelchair since entering prison. In December 2008, a petition for writ of
certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging Sullivan’s case under the Eighth
Amendment and in May 2009, the Court agreed to hear the case.

Juvenile Life Sentences Aren’t Necessarily Reserved for the Worst of the Worst
A review of juvenile life without parole cases contradicts the general assumption that
these sentences are reserved only for the most chronically violent youth, “the worst of the
worst.” In a 2005 assessment of JLWOP, a Human Rights Watch study reported that in
59% of the sentences nationwide, the youth was a first-time offender. 22 This fact runs
contrary to the commonly-held assumption that individuals serving LWOP sentences are
chronic, repeat offenders. In addition, in 26% of cases, the juvenile serving an LWOP
sentence was not the primary assailant and, in many cases, was present but only
minimally involved in the crime. However, because of state law, they were automatically
given a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Evidence of disparate LWOP
sentences for juveniles versus adults is also apparent, and not always in the expected
direction; during four of the 17 years between 1985 and 2001, youth convicted of
murder were more likely to receive a sentence of life without parole than adults
sentenced to life or a death sentence. 23

Ibid.

PAGE 32

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

There is broad variation across the states in sentencing young people to life, a function of
several factors. First, states differ in the age at which children can be waived to the adult
court, thus triggering their initial eligibility for a life sentence. In addition, in some
states, persons charged with certain crimes are automatically transferred and sentenced to
life upon conviction, while in other states they are not. Specifically, state law mandates
life without parole upon conviction of certain offenses in 29 states, but can be granted or
overruled at a judge’s discretion for the same offenses in 15 states. 24 The use of juvenile
life without parole is prohibited in Alaska, Colorado, 25 Kansas, New Mexico, and
Oregon.

Felony Murder Rule
One final problem with JLWOP is its application in association with the felony murder
rule. 26 This rule, which accounts for 26% of youth serving LWOP sentences, 27 refers to
an instance where the defendant was present during the commission of a murder but did
not actually commit the act. In some instances a felony murder rule is invoked if, during
the commission of a felony such as a robbery, someone is unintentionally killed. The
felony murder rule often results in excessive punishment for juveniles who are present
during the commission of a felony.
The application of the felony murder rule is especially egregious for juveniles because of
the well-documented evidence that youth often go along with group-based plans out of a
desire to fit in with their peers. This desire dissipates over time with individual maturity
and executive functioning skills. If they are among older peers, as is often the case, the
drive to fit in may be even more difficult to resist.

Ibid.

JLWOP was banned in 2005, but the law was not retroactive so youth sentenced to LWOP before 2005 are still serving their

sentences.
26

The felony murder rule applies for adults as well, but there are no national data available on the proportion of adults serving

LWOP sentences because of this policy.
27

Human Rights Watch/Amnesty International , supra note 21.

PAGE 33

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

Patrick McLemore
Patrick McLemore was 16 years old at the time of a robbery in Michigan in which his 20-year-old
accomplice committed a murder. McLemore was not even in the residence at the time of the
murder. His co-defendant pled guilty to second degree murder and was sentenced to 30-60 years
in prison. McLemore went to trial and was convicted of first degree murder; he is now serving a
life sentence with no possibility of parole.

One scholar refers to the felony murder rule as “…the pinnacle of inconsistency between
an actor’s culpability and his subsequent punishment.” 28 Life sentences are allegedly
reserved for the most culpable individuals, yet the children and adolescents subjected to
this especially harsh sentence associated with the felony murder rule did not commit the
homicide, rendering them less culpable. In addition, the rule is applied without benefit
of judicial discretion in most cases.
Though one argument for this rule is that it should serve as a deterrent for potential
offenders, it has been pointed out that one cannot deter unforeseen events such as death
in the commission of a felony. If one argued that deterrence was effective as a crime
reducing strategy, which is difficult to determine, 29 a more logical solution would be to
enhance the penalties associated with intentional felonies. 30

Flynn, E. H. (2008). Dismantling the Felony Murder Rule: Juvenile Deterrence and Retribution Post Roper v. Simmons.

University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 156: p.1062.
29

Nagin, D. and Pogarsky, G. (2004). Time and Punishment: Delayed Consequences and Criminal Behavior. Journal of

Quantitative Criminology 20(4): 295-317.
30

Flynn, supra note 28, p. 156.

PAGE 34

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

THE CONSEQUENCES OF LIFE SENTENCES ON SOCIETY

The Struggle to Balance Punishment and Proportionality
For what purpose are so many people incarcerated for life at an exponentially increasing
cost? The rationale for opposing the use of parole for persons serving a life sentence
generally pivots around issues of punishment, retribution, and incapacitation in the
interest of public safety. This goal conjures up the question of the appropriate duration
of time in prison. How are these various goals met by a life sentence, as opposed to a
term of 15 or 25 years, for example?
This question came before the California Supreme Court in 2008 in reviewing the
habeas petition of Sandra Davis Lawrence, who is serving a life term for murder. In
January of 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reversed the decision of the Board of
Parole Hearings and denied the release of Ms. Lawrence, stating that the murder she had
committed in 1971 “demonstrated a shockingly vicious use of lethality and an
exceptionally callous disregard for human suffering.” At issue was whether she had
served enough time in prison relative to the circumstances of the crime to warrant her
release.
Sandra Lawrence was convicted in 1983 for the 1971 murder of the wife of a man with
whom she had been having an affair. She fled California after the murder and
voluntarily returned in 1982 to face trial. Ms. Lawrence was sentenced to life in prison
in 1983, with a first date of parole eligibility in 1990. While incarcerated, Ms. Lawrence
made substantial progress addressing the underlying causes of her criminal activity and,
beginning in 1993, was recommended by the Board of Parole Hearings for release on
four separate occasions. “[T]he Board concluded that [Lawrence] committed the crime
as a result of significant stress, and had demonstrated motivation, growth, and a greater
understanding of herself and the crime she committed.” She participated in prison-based
programs, earned a bachelor’s degree, became a mentor to others in prison, and took
responsibility for her past actions. She was found to exhibit little risk for recidivism and

PAGE 35

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

was not considered to pose a danger to society. Despite substantial evidence of her
suitability for return to the community, Governors Wilson, Davis, and Schwarzenegger
reversed the positive parole recommendations. In 2004, Governor Schwarzenegger
stated that the crime was committed for an “incredibly petty” reason and that this
rationale was “reason enough to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety.”
At issue in the Lawrence case is the broader question of whether the circumstances of the
crime should act as a permanent barrier to release and, albeit indirectly in this case, are
there some criminal histories that can never be overcome, no matter how much a person
has changed in the intervening decades? The latter strikes at a central concern regarding
life sentences: the failure to recognize the fact that someone who has been in prison for
two decades is likely to be very different than when they were sentenced. One of the
primary purposes of incarceration is to work toward rehabilitation. Parole and earned
sentence reductions are intended both as an incentive for reform and a measure of one’s
suitability to be returned to society. Historically, life sentences were seen as
indeterminate, with the possibility of parole as a catalyst for seeking personal redemption
and growth. The widespread decline in granting parole, even in cases of clearly
demonstrated personal change, undermines the incentive for reform and sends an
inconsistent message to persons in prison regarding how to spend their years behind bars.
While concerns about public safety may fade as an individual ages in prison and becomes
less of a threat, the rationale of retribution, frequently linked to the heinousness of the
crime, does not diminish at the same rate. In the case of Ms. Lawrence, the reasons for
denying her release had little to do with concerns about safety or her unwillingness to
accept responsibility for her actions. Instead, these decisions were grounded in the
retributive desire to continue to punish her based on the details of her crime. The
California Supreme Court challenged this contention, reversing the lower court’s denial
of Lawrence’s petition for habeas corpus and stating: “At some point . . . when there is
affirmative evidence, based upon the prisoner’s subsequent behavior and current mental
state, that the prisoner, if released, would not currently be dangerous, his or her past
offense may no longer realistically constitute a reliable or accurate indicator of the
prisoner’s current dangerousness.”

PAGE 36

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

Recidivism and Public Safety
It is argued by some that incapacitating certain people for decades, if not for their natural
life, is necessary for the sake of public safety. This argument turns on the point that to
release someone who has been sentenced to life will jeopardize the public because of an
imminent threat of reoffending. However, recidivism rates for persons serving a life
sentence are considerably lower than for the general released population. A 2004 analysis
by The Sentencing Project found that persons who were released from a life sentence
were less than one-third as likely to be rearrested within three years as all released
persons. 31 While two-thirds of all persons released in 1994 were rearrested within three
years, only 1 in 5 persons who were released from a life sentence was rearrested. 32
Though not specifically addressing recidivism rates for persons sentenced to life, a study
in Ohio of 21 people released in 2000 who were 50 years of age or older and had served
25 years or more at the time of release found that none of these persons committed a
new crime during the three years after their release. In Pennsylvania, the recidivism rate
of persons convicted of a new crime who were 50 years of age or older and released in
2003 was 1.4% in the first 10 to 22 months after release. While Pennsylvania does not
permit parole for persons convicted of a life sentence, research on 285 persons who had
their life sentence commuted and were released from prison found a recidivism rate for a
new criminal conviction of just 1%. 33
These studies do not evaluate life sentences directly, but they are drawn from a similarly
situated population – older persons who have served upwards of 20 years. Thus, they are
illustrative of likely outcomes among individuals who have been sentenced to life should
they be released. In fact, the research literature is replete with support for the perspective

Mauer, King, and Young, supra note 2, p. 24.

Ibid.

Advisory Committee on Geriatric and Seriously Ill Inmates, supra note 4, p. 81.

PAGE 37

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

that persons serving a life sentence are some of the most well-adjusted persons in prison. 34
For these individuals, the prison becomes their social universe for the long-term and
maintaining order becomes a priority. Persons serving a life sentence are frequently
lauded by correctional administrators and called upon to serve as mentors.

The Costs of an Aging Prison Population
In 1997, 13% of persons serving a life sentence were 50 years of age or older. By 2004
that figure had increased to 22%. 35 This figure will likely increase, as more people are
admitted to prison on an LWOP sentence.

William Heirens
The effects of life without parole sentencing policies can be seen in the Illinois case of William
Heirens, who has now served more than 63 years for a triple-murder he committed in 1946. He
currently suffers from diabetes and is confined to a wheelchair in ailing health, costing the state a
substantial premium above and beyond the routine costs of incarceration. In 1946, Heirens was
sentenced to three consecutive life terms, but with the possibility of parole. Mr. Heirens has
served a model term of incarceration, becoming the first person in an Illinois prison to earn a fouryear college degree and acting as a mentor to other incarcerated persons. Yet at 78 years old, his
application for parole was unanimously denied in August 2008, with one Parole Board member
saying, “God will forgive you, but the state won’t.”

Johnson, R. and Dobranska, A. (2005). Mature Coping among Life Sentenced Inmates: An Exploratory Study of Adjusted

Dynamics. Corrections Compendium. November/December: 8-38; Johnson, R. and McGunigall-Smith, S. (2008). Life
without Parole, America’s Other Death Penalty: Notes on Life under Sentence of Death by Incarceration. The Prison Journal
88(2): 328-346.
35

Bureau of Justice Statistics and Federal Bureau of Prisons (2000). Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Corrections

Facilities, 1997 [computer file]; Bureau of Justice Statistics and Federal Bureau of Prisons (2006). Survey of Inmates in State
and Federal Corrections Facilities, 2004 [computer file].

PAGE 38

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

The case of William Heirens raises the issue of what utility his continued incarceration
offers for the citizens of Illinois and at what cost. At the national level, with more than
40,000 persons serving a sentence of LWOP and more than 140,000 persons serving a
life sentence with diminished prospects for release, the issue of aging in prison is
becoming a serious policy consideration for correctional administrators.
The aging prison population is of paramount importance in contributing to the rising
cost of healthcare for older prisoners. Older persons in prison frequently exhibited
higher rates of health problems than the general population when they were sentenced to
prison. 36 This is the result of a number of factors, including higher rates of substance
abuse, physical abuse, and inconsistent access to health care. Higher rates of
incarceration among persons from low-income, communities of color mean that
disparities in overall health are elevated in the incarcerated population and magnified
further among older, incarcerated individuals. The cumulative effect of an unhealthy
lifestyle coupled with a prison environment that is not conducive to healthy living results
in declining standards of health among aging prisoners.
Thus, older persons in prison are substantially more expensive to incarcerate. Higher
rates of chronic illness among persons over the age of 50 result in an increased frequency
of medical visits, procedures, and dispensed medication. While cost estimates vary for
the care of an aging individual in prison, it has been estimated to be more than three
times that of incarcerating a younger, healthy person. In one facility in Pennsylvania, it
is estimated that a person receiving long-term care costs $63,500 per year incarcerated. 37
In California, the cost is estimated to be between $98,000 and $138,000 per year for the
incarceration of older persons. An estimate by The Sentencing Project found that a state
would be spending upwards of $1 million to incarcerate a life sentenced person for 40
years (from age 30 through 70). 38 Unsurprisingly, the intersection of increasing health
36

Marquart, J. W., Merianos, D. E., and Doucet, G. (2000). The Health-Related Concerns of Older Prisoners: Implications

for Policy. Aging and Society, 20: 79-96; Fazel, S., Hope, T., O’Donnell, I., Piper, M., and Jacoby, R. (2001). Health of
Elderly Male Prisoners: Worse Than the General Population, Worse Than Younger Prisoners. Age and Aging, 30: 403-407.
37

Advisory Committee on Geriatric and Seriously Ill Inmates, supra note 4, p. 2.

Mauer, King, and Young, supra note 2, p. 25.

PAGE 39

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

costs and a rapidly aging prison population has placed an enormous burden upon
correctional administrators to pay for these required services. In no state has this struggle
been starker than in California, where the correctional system is under federal
receivership and has recently been ordered to cut the prison population by as much as
58,000. It is estimated that the state will need $8 billion to fund the construction of
10,000 prison hospital beds.

Housing Youth with Adults
Numerous problems have been documented with housing young people with adults and
these problems pertain to the young life sentenced population as well. Youth serving
adult sentences comingle with adults because they are legally considered to be adults.
Young people are exposed to the extreme violence that frequently takes place within
adult prisons. They are also denied age-appropriate prison programs that they could
participate in if housed in a juvenile detention center. Juveniles in adult settings are
much more likely to be sexually assaulted than those in juvenile correctional facilities: the
Bureau of Justice Statistics estimates that in 2005, 21% of all victims of sexual violence
in jails were under the age of 18. Considering that persons under 18 make up only 1%
of the jail population, this number is quite high. 39 In addition, juveniles are at a higher
risk of physical assault by staff in adult facilities than when housed in juvenile
detention. 40

Arya, N. (2007). Jailing Juveniles: The Dangers of Incarcerating Youth in Adult Jails in America. Washington, D.C.:

Campaign for Youth Justice.
40

Woolard, J. L., Odgers, C., Lanza-Kaduce L., and Daglis, H. (2005). Juveniles within Adult Corrections: Legal Pathways

and Developmental Considerations. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health 4 (1): 1-18.

PAGE 40

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR REFORM

Eliminate Sentences of Life without Parole
Life without parole sentences are costly, shortsighted, and ignore the potential for
transformative personal growth. The 43 states that have both life and LWOP sentences
should amend their statutes to make all life sentences parole-eligible. The six states and
the federal system with LWOP-only sentences should replace this structure with paroleeligible terms. An example may come from Canada, where all persons serving life are
considered for parole after serving 10 to 25 years.
Such a change would not necessarily mean that all parole eligible persons would be
released at some point during their term. In the interest of public safety, many
individuals sentenced to life will serve the remainder of their natural lives in prison.
However, this reform would provide that a decision on release be made by a
professional parole board at the time of eligibility, taking into account a person’s
prospects for a successful transition to the community.
Such policy changes are gaining traction among key practitioners. In its draft
standards, The American Law Institute, a professional body of judges, lawyers, and
academics has called for the elimination of life without parole except as an alternative
to the death penalty. 41 And, in June 2009, a federal judge in Pennsylvania reaffirmed
a lower-court ruling that eases the clemency request process for Pennsylvania inmates
serving life sentences which began before 1997. Before this time, pardon
recommendations required a simple majority vote by the state Pardons Board before
being passed to the governor for review, but the law changed in late 1997 to require a
unanimous vote instead. The present ruling allows inmates sentenced before 1997,
perhaps as many as 3,000, to apply for a pardon under these earlier rules. 42
41

The American Law Institute (2009). Model Penal Code: Sentencing Discussion Draft 2 No. 2. Philadelphia: The American

Law Institute.
42

Jackson, Peter. (2009, June 26). Ruling Offers Hope to Pennsylvania Life Inmates. The Associated Press.

PAGE 41

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

Eliminate Juvenile LWOP
As an intermediate step toward a wholesale repeal of LWOP, policymakers should
eliminate JLWOP. The United States is the only country in the world that imposes
JLWOP sentences, placing it in violation of international law. The committee that
oversees the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights notes that
“…sentencing children to life sentences without parole is…not in compliance with
Article 24(1) of the Covenant.” And, the Committee Against Torture, which oversees the
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, finds that JLWOP “…could constitute cruel, inhuman treatment or
degrading treatment or punishment” in violation of the treaty. 43
Many view the elimination of JLWOP as a natural evolution of the U.S. Supreme
Court’s decision in Roper, in which the death penalty was determined to be
unconstitutional for juveniles because of the Court’s admission that juveniles are much
more amenable to reform than adults. In Roper, the Court also recognized that there
should be different standards for judging culpability for children than for adults; this
reasoning applies to JLWOP as well. Efforts are underway in a number of states to
eliminate JLWOP because of the growing awareness that this sentence is particularly
inappropriate and cruel when applied to young people. In recent years, legislation has
been introduced in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan,
Missouri, Nebraska, Texas, and Washington that would allow parole hearings at some
point during a juvenile’s sentence. Federal leadership is needed to eliminate JLWOP in
the federal system and to serve as an example to states that this sentence type is
unacceptable.

Prepare Persons Sentenced to Life for Release From Prison
The emergence of reentry as a criminal justice policy issue in the last decade has largely
ignored persons serving a life sentence. Typically, reentry programs are provided to
persons within 6 months of their release date and offer transition services in the
43

Human Rights Watch/Amnesty International , supra note 21.

PAGE 42

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

community upon release. However, for persons serving a life sentence, their release date
is not fixed and they are often overlooked as policymakers and correctional
administrators consider reentry strategies. Additionally, persons serving a life sentence
have unique reentry needs based upon the long duration of their prison term.
The failure to design reentry strategies for persons serving a life sentence neglects 1 in 11
persons in prison by denying them the opportunity to participate in valuable
programming. Reentry and reintegration principles must be extended to persons serving
a life sentence. Correctional programs can contribute to a successful release and persons
serving life should be encouraged to access the types of services that will help them
transform their lives and improve their presentation before the parole board. One
model is the Lifeline program, first enacted in Canada and being considered in Colorado.
In Lifeline, persons who have successfully reintegrated into society after serving a life
sentence serve as mentors to those persons who are going to be released. “In-reach
workers” help prepare individuals while they are still in prison for the challenges they will
face and assist those who have been released to the community. The program has been
in place for more than 15 years in Canada and 8 in 10 persons serving life reported the
service to be helpful.

Restore the Role of Parole
In 1967, the President’s Crime Commission recommended that parole boards be staffed
by correctional professionals rather than political appointees. However, more than 40
years later, parole boards remain the domain of political appointees and two-thirds of
states lack any standardized qualifications for service. This has resulted in a highly
politicized process that too often discounts evidence and expert testimony. Parole boards
should be staffed with members who have a background in corrections or relevant social
services in order to best assess suitability for release. They should also use risk-based
release polices that consider a range of static and dynamic factors including criminal
history, offense severity, prison disciplinary record, and program participation while
incarcerated.

PAGE 43

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

APPENDIX A: METHODOLOGY
Data were collected from state’s Department of Corrections (DOC) between April 2008
and December 2008. DOCs were contacted through email, followed by telephone calls
placed to the appropriate department when original requests were unanswered. Several
unsuccessful attempts were made to obtain usable data from Illinois and Utah. We also
received data from the federal Bureau of Prisons.
In this report, we define juveniles according to each state’s statutory definition of juvenile
rather than the alternative definition of individuals under 18. Therefore, our estimates
are frequently lower than estimates that may be found elsewhere because we exclude cases
where state law automatically excludes certain youth from juvenile jurisdiction because of
their age. Our use of the term “juvenile” is used deliberately instead of the term
“individuals under 18,” though in some states, these are synonymous.
One final caveat in our data concerns ethnicity. Data on Hispanics are often unreliable
and suffer frequently from problems of double-counting or undercounting because
ethnicity is conflated with race, though substantial improvements have been noted in the
past few years in many crime data systems.

PAGE 44

NO EXIT | THE EXPANDING USE OF LIFE SENTENCES IN AMERICA

APPENDIX B: SURVEY OF STATE DEPARTMENTS OF
CORRECTIONS ON LIFE-SENTENCED POPULATION
Hello,
I am conducting a national census of state departments of corrections in order to document the number of
individuals serving a life sentence. I would be grateful if you would take a few moments and provide me with
the following information for [STATE]. Thank you in advance for your time. If you have any questions about
this project, please do not hesitate to be in touch. I can be reached at [EMAIL ADDRESS] or 202-628-0871.
TOTAL PRISON POPULATION:___________
SECTION I. PERSONS SERVING A LIFE SENTENCE WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE
A.

PERSONS WHO COMMITTED THE OFFENSE WHEN THEY WERE ADULTS:

TOTAL:___________

MALE:___________

FEMALE:_________

AFRICAN AMERICAN:_________

WHITE:____________

HISPANIC:___________

OTHER:____________

PERSONS WHO WERE CONVICTED IN ADULT COURT FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED WHEN THEY
WERE JUVENILES:

TOTAL:___________

MALE:___________

FEMALE:_________

AFRICAN AMERICAN:_________

WHITE:____________

HISPANIC:___________

OTHER:____________

SECTION II. PERSONS SERVING AN LWOP SENTENCE
C.

PERSONS WHO COMMITTED THE OFFENSE WHEN THEY WERE ADULTS:

TOTAL:___________

MALE:___________

FEMALE:_________

AFRICAN AMERICAN:_________

WHITE:____________

HISPANIC:___________

OTHER:____________

PERSONS WHO WERE CONVICTED IN ADULT COURT FOR OFFENSES COMMITTED WHEN THEY
WERE JUVENILES:

TOTAL:___________

MALE:___________

FEMALE:_________

AFRICAN AMERICAN:_________

WHITE:____________

HISPANIC:___________

OTHER:____________

AS OF (DATE):________________

FURTHER READING AVAILABLE AT www.sentencingproject.org:

The Meaning of “Life”: Long Prison Sentences in Context
Incarceration and Crime: A Complex Relationship
Lessons of the “Get Tough” Movement in the United States
The State of Sentencing 2008: Developments in Policy and Practice

THE

SENTENCING
PROJECT
514 TENTH STREET, NW SUITE lOOO
WASHINGTON, DC 20004

TEL:

202.628.0871 •

FAX: 202.628.lO91