lmost 10 percent of all inmates in state and federal prisons are serving life sentences, an increase of 83 percent from 1992, according to a report released yesterday by the Sentencing Project, a prison research and advocacy group.
In two states, New York and California, almost 20 percent of inmates are serving life sentences, the report found.
The increase is not the result of a growth in crime, which actually fell 35 percent from 1992 to 2002, the report pointed out. Instead, it is the result of more punitive laws adopted by Congress and state legislatures as part of the movement to get tough on crime, the report said.
The jump in the number of inmates serving life sentences imposes large costs on states, about $1 million for each inmate who serves out his full sentence behind bars, said Marc Mauer, the assistant director of the Sentencing Project and an author of the study. This is a heavy burden on taxpayers at a time when most states are facing record budget deficits and many states are searching for ways to cut prison costs.
The great majority of prisoners serving life sentences, now totaling 127,677, have been convicted of a violent offense, with 68.9 percent convicted of murder, the report found.
But, Mr. Mauer said, "the very broad application of life sentences has blurred the distinction between what is a really serious crime deserving a life sentence and some crimes where there is less culpability." For example, he said, 4 percent of those serving life sentences were convicted of drug crimes and 3.9 percent of property crimes, and a sizable number were battered women who killed their husbands after they themselves had been beaten.
Some of those serving a life sentence for the least serious crimes have been sentenced under California's "three strikes and you're out" law, the report said. The Supreme Court recently upheld the life sentence of Leandro Andrade, whose third strike, or felony conviction, was for the theft of children's videotapes worth $153 that he intended as Christmas gifts for his nieces.
In addition, the report found, there were 23,523 inmates serving a life sentence who were mentally ill and whose acts might have been caused by their illness.
The report includes both offenders sentenced to life without the possibility of parole and those given life sentences with a chance at parole after serving a specified minimum term.
The report also found that the recidivism rate for lifers released from prison was 20 percent. Among all prison inmates, 67 percent are re-arrested within three years.
The report did not suggest why inmates serving life terms have a lower recidivism rate. But criminologists have long noted that criminals start to commit less crime as they get into their 30's or older.
Before the 1970's, most states had systems in which judges had the discretion to impose sentences of indeterminate length. The idea was to give inmates a chance to rehabilitate themselves and earn parole, or early release.
But in the 1980's, and then even more strongly in the 1990's, Congress and state legislatures took away this judicial discretion, enacting laws like mandatory minimum sentences and truth-in-sentencing policies, which required inmates to serve the full length of time to which they were sentenced. Additionally, some states made sentences like 25 years to life into life without parole.
Many governors and state legislatures also sharply limited the authority of parole boards to release inmates early.
The cumulative result of these changes, Mr. Mauer said, is that inmates serving sentences that once would have been 25 years to life are serving a longer portion of their sentence, or all of it, till they die in prison, thus increasing the number of lifers behind bars.
Joshua Marquis, the district attorney of Clatsop County in Oregon, said that longer sentences, including more life sentences, had been a key to reducing the crime rate. "There is a reason crime in Oregon is down 40 percent in the last decade, and that is that the small population that perpetrates the majority of the most violent crimes is locked up for longer periods of time," Mr. Marquis said.
Until the passage of sentencing guidelines in 1989, said Mr. Marquis, who is on the board of the National District Attorneys Association, judges in Oregon could sentence a murderer to prison for life, but he could get out in only eight or nine years. "This caused enormous frustration for law enforcement and the public," he said.
In six states plus the federal system, a life sentence now automatically means life without parole, the report said. They are Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Pennsylvania and South Dakota.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
WASHINGTON-The number of prisoners serving life sentences has increased 83 percent in the past 10 years, as tough-on-crime initiatives have led to harsher penalties, a study says.
Nearly 128,000 people, or one of every 11 offenders in state and federal prisons, are serving life sentences, according to the study released yesterday by The Sentencing Project, a Washington-based group that promotes alternatives to prison. In 1992, 70,000 people had life sentences.
Nearly 17 percent of inmates in Massachusetts are serving life sentences.
The figures, compiled from the Federal Bureau of Prisons and state correctional agencies, also show that the average amount of time served by criminals given life sentences increased from 21 years in 1991 to 29 years in 1997.
The report said the increases are not the result of more crime, since violent crime fell significantly during the period covered by the study. Instead, the causes are primarily longer mandatory sentences and more restrictive parole and commutation policies.
In Tennessee, for example, state law requires that any person sentenced to life with the possibility of parole serve at least 51 years before release is considered.
In Pennsylvania, all life sentences have been imposed without parole since the 1940s, but governors frequently commuted such sentences, doing so in more than 300 cases in the 1970s. But only one lifer has had a sentence commuted since 1995, the report said.
The report also points out that "three strikes" laws requiring life sentences for any third felony conviction are another cause for boosting the number of lifers. Many of those given such penalties are nonviolent drug offenders.
"The people serving life have committed serious offenses, but it doesn't mean that imposing life sentences across the board is always appropriate or the best crime control strategy," said Mark Mauer, assistant director of The Sentencing Project and coauthor of the study.
New York had the highest percentage of its state inmates serving life sentences, 19.4 percent, followed by Nevada, 18.6 percent; California, 18.1 percent; Alabama, 17.3 percent; and Massachusetts, 16.9 percent.
Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation in California, which favors stiff sentences, said people who commit serious crimes should not be treated easily.
"For the worst of murders the appropriate sentences are life without parole and death," he said. "If they've gotten life without parole, they've gotten off easy."
In 2003, one in four lifers was serving a sentence without possibility of parole; in 1992 it was one in six, according to the report. The study also found that in 1997, 90 percent of those serving life sentences were in prison for a violent offense, including 69 percent for murder.
"We can't say across the board none of them should have life sentences and conversely that the 90 percent that are in for violent crimes should be in for life," Mauer said. The report details how tougher standards have swollen the population of lifers, further straining the resources and capacity of state prison systems.
It costs $1 million to house a person sentenced to life in prison for 40 years, the report says. Mauer said that money could in some cases be better spent.
© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
For the latest drug war news, visit our friends and allies below
We are careful not to duplicate the efforts of other organizations, and as a grassroots coalition of prisoners and social reformers, our resources (time and money) are limited. The vast expertise and scope of the various drug reform organizations will enable you to stay informed on the ever-changing, many-faceted aspects of the movement. Our colleagues in reform also give the latest drug war news. Please check their websites often.