THE STATE OF SENTENCING 2015
DEVELOPMENTS IN POLICY AND PRACTICE

For more information, contact:
The Sentencing Project
1705 DeSales Street NW
8th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
(202) 628-0871
sentencingproject.org
twitter.com/sentencingproj
facebook.com/thesentencingproject

This report was written by Nicole D. Porter, Director of Advocacy at The
Sentencing Project.
The Sentencing Project is a national non-profit organization engaged
in research and advocacy on criminal justice issues. Our work is
supported by many individual donors and contributions from the
following:
Atlantic Philanthropies
Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation
craigslist Charitable Fund
Ford Foundation
Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel Foundation
Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund
General Board of Global Ministries of the United Methodist Church
JK Irwin Foundation
Mott Philanthropy
Open Society Foundations
Petsechelk Foundation
Public Welfare Foundation
Rail Down Charitable Trust
David Rockefeller Fund
Elizabeth B. and Arthur E. Roswell Foundation
San Francisco Foundation
Tikva Grassroots Empowerment Fund of Tides Foundation
Elsie P. van Buren Foundation
Wallace Global Fund
Copyright © 2016 by The Sentencing Project. Reproduction of this
document in full or in part, and in print or electronic format, only by
permission of The Sentencing Project.

2 The Sentencing Project

INTRODUCTION
The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the
world and keeps nearly 7 million men and women under criminal
justice supervision. More than 2.2 million are in prison or jail,
while 4.7 million are monitored in the community on probation
or parole.

offenses; and Oklahoma’s governor directed parole officials
to establish a sentence reduction policy for persons sentenced
to certain mandatory penalties.
•	

Mandatory sentencing reform: Maryland, Oklahoma and
North Dakota authorized sentencing judges to depart from
mandatory minimums in certain circumstances. These
reforms generally allow a departure from statutory mandatory
minimums based on the nature of the crime, mitigating
circumstances, defendant’s character, and the defendant’s
chances of successful rehabilitation.

•	

Probation and parole: Lawmakers in at least six states –
Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Montana, Texas, and Utah
– modified policies relating to community supervision.
Included among the law changes is statutory guidance
designed to reduce returns to prison for technical probation
and parole violators.

•	

Collateral consequences: Officials in at least 14 states
authorized changes in policy and practice to the collateral
impacts of a conviction. Notably, officials in California
restored voting rights to 60,000 people on probation
supervision and Kentucky reinstated voting rights to an
estimated 100,000 citizens. Also, Alabama lawmakers
eliminated the federal lifetime ban on food and cash
assistance for persons with felony drug convictions, while
Texas officials modified the ban on food assistance. Other
reforms included authorizing fair chance hiring policies –
“Ban the Box” -- for persons with criminal records in at
least five states.

•	

Juvenile justice: Lawmakers in ten states adopted juvenile
justice reforms, including at least three states which
authorized legislation in response to Miller v. Alabama, the
Supreme Court decision banning mandatory life-withoutparole sentences for justice involved youth. Policymakers
in at least two states restricted prosecutorial discretion in
automatic transfer policies for juvenile defendants.

A mix of crime rates and legislative and administrative policies
has produced the nation’s high rate of incarceration. Punitive
sentencing practices like mandatory minimums, habitual offender
laws, the expansion of life without parole, and restrictions on
sentence reduction policies have resulted in longer prison terms.
The Bureau of Justice Statistics has reported a modest decline
of one percent in the nation’s federal and state prison population
for 2014. Twenty-four states and the federal Bureau of Prisons
experienced declines in total prison populations between yearend
2013 and 2014. Among the states, Mississippi experienced the
largest decline, with 3,200 fewer persons in prison in 2014, a
decrease of 15 percent. In Texas, the state with nation’s largest
prison population, there was a modest decline of 1 percent, or
2,200 prisoners, from 2013 to 2014.
The need to reduce corrections spending has contributed to
policy change at the state level. In many instances, state lawmakers
have cited the lack of available resources to maintain a high
prison capacity. During 2015, lawmakers in at least 30 states
adopted changes in policy and practice that may contribute to
further declines in incarcerated populations and address the
collateral impacts of justice involvement. The policy reforms
outlined in this document highlight changes in sentencing,
community supervision, collateral consequences, and juvenile
justice policies.
Highlights include:
•	

Sentencing: At least 12 states authorized new sentencing
laws or modified policy practices to address prison population
growth. Nebraska lawmakers abolished the death penalty;
Connecticut reduced criminal penalties for certain drug

The State of Sentencing 2015: Developments in Policy and Practice 3

•	

Drug-free zone reforms: Utah and Connecticut lawmakers
narrowed the scope of drug-free zone policies that impose
lengthy prison terms for drug offenses. Individuals convicted
of using or selling drugs within the protected zone, and in
many cases at a great distance from a school, have faced
substantially higher penalties than others who engaged in
the same conduct outside the zone. State reforms have
focused on limiting the geographic area of the zones and
placing restrictions on when and under what circumstances
the enhanced penalties apply.

•	

Reclassifying felony offenses: Connecticut, Maine, North
Dakota, and Utah reclassified certain felony offenses to
misdemeanors. Lawmakers enacted these policy changes to
reduce incarceration and address the collateral impact of a
felony conviction, including loss of voting rights, public
benefits, and access to private and public housing. These
policy reforms build on the 2014 California ballot measure,
Proposition 47, where voters approved reclassifying six
low-level property and drug offenses from felonies to
misdemeanors.

While some reforms in recent years have addressed the drivers
of mass incarceration, many have been relatively modest and
therefore have had only a limited impact on state prison
populations.
To meaningfully address the nation’s scale of incarceration
stakeholders must revisit the policies observed to increase prison
admissions and lengthened terms of confinement. Addressing
mass incarceration will involve scaling back long prison terms
even for serious crimes. It remains to be seen whether the
decisions of policymakers to address sentencing laws and
practices can contribute to an evolving framework that shifts
away from the reliance on incarceration.

4 The Sentencing Project

Key Criminal Justice Policy Reforms and Legislation Passed in 2015
State

Reform(s)

Alabama

Authorized Justice Reinvestment Initiative: established new felony class for certain offenses; expanded
sentencing options; and eliminated federal lifetime public benefits bans for persons with felony drug
convictions.

Arkansas

Modified parole revocation process.

California

Expanded juvenile parole policy to young adults. Broadened alternatives to prison for eligible incarcerated
persons. Extended voting rights to persons with certain felony convictions.

Connecticut

Reclassified felony drug possession as a misdemeanor. Scaled back drug penalty enhancement zones.
Enacted changes to parole process. Addressed collateral impacts of certain felony drug convictions.
Eliminated juvenile life without parole. Raised the age for certain felony offenses for juvenile defendants.

Georgia

Authorized changes to probation and parole system. Established fair chance hiring policy for persons with
criminal records.

Illinois

Eliminated juvenile life without parole. Raised the age for automatic transfer for certain offenses.

Indiana

Changed sentence modification policy. Addressed driver’s license policy for persons with certain felony
convictions.

Kansas

Allowed juveniles convicted as adults to serve sentences in youth detention.

Kentucky

Expanded voting rights to persons with certain felony convictions.

Maine

Reclassified certain drug possession offenses from felonies to misdemeanors.

Maryland

Scaled back certain mandatory minimums for drug offenses. Established Justice reinvestment
coordinating council.

Minnesota

Expanded sentencing options for juveniles certified as adults.

Montana

Created Sentencing Commission. Modified executive clemency process.

Nebraska

Abolished the death penalty. Authorized prison population reduction measures.

Nevada

Restricted juvenile life without parole as a sentencing option.

New York

Established fair chance hiring policy for persons with criminal records. Authorized pardon policy for
persons with juvenile convictions.

North Dakota

Allowed judicial departures for certain drug mandatory minimums. Reclassified certain felony penalties to
misdemeanors.

Ohio

Established fair chance hiring policy for persons with criminal records.

Oklahoma

Expanded judicial discretion for certain offenses. Modified sentence reduction policy. Scaled back life
without parole for certain offenses. Reformed occupational licensing restrictions for persons with criminal
records.

Oregon

Established fair chance hiring policy for persons with criminal records.

Pennsylvania

Eliminated certain automatic employment bans for persons with prior convictions.

South Carolina

Authorized automatic expungement for qualifying juvenile records.

South Dakota

Codified options to address juvenile substance abuse.

Texas

Reformed felony property thresholds. Modified parole revocation policy and sentence reductions. Relaxed
federal lifetime ban on food assistance for persons with felony drug convictions. Codified changes to child
support policy for incarcerated persons. Addressed ability of persons with felony convictions to rent
private housing. Expanded expungement policy. Enacted truancy reform.

Utah

Enacted Justice Reinvestment Initiative: scaled back drug-free sentencing enhancement zones; eliminated
weight thresholds for all marijuana offenses; and reclassified marijuana possession from a felony to
misdemeanor.

Vermont

Abolished juvenile life without parole.

Virginia

Authorized fair chance hiring policy for persons with criminal records. Allowed firearm possession for
certain justice-involved persons.

Washington

Mandated certain youth sentenced as adults serve time in a juvenile facility. Addressed justice-involved
debt for juveniles. Modified automatic transfer policy.

West Virginia

Passed truancy reform. Expanded community-based alternatives for eligible justice involved youth.

Wyoming

Restored voting rights to persons with certain felony convictions.

The State of Sentencing 2015: Developments in Policy and Practice 5

SENTENCING
During 2015, officials in at least 12 states addressed sentencing
policies and practices to address the number of persons in prison
and improve fairness in the criminal justice system. These policy
changes may help to scale back the harsh punishments as a
contributing driver of mass incarceration. Lawmakers and
stakeholders interested in policy solutions to reduce state prison
populations should consider laws that trigger admissions to
prison and length of confinement. Reforms adopted in a range
of states included abolishing the death penalty in Nebraska, at
least four states reclassified felonies to misdemeanors, and at
least five states scaled back mandatory minimums for certain
drug offenses.

EXPANDED PAROLE AND
ALTERNATIVES TO PRISON FOR
ELIGIBLE INCARCERATED PERSONS
Lawmakers authorized several policy reforms
that reinforce a continuing effort to address
chronic prison overcrowding. Senate Bill
261 expands recent changes to policies
governing parole for persons sentenced as
juveniles. During 2013, state lawmakers
authorized Senate Bill 260, a measure that
required Youth Offender Parole hearings
for eligible incarcerated youth convicted of specified crimes
prior to the age of 18. SB 261 expands that policy to persons
who were 18-22 at the time of their crimes, and applies to
persons sentenced to life prison terms or lengthy determinate
sentences. The policy also requires that the Board consult with
persons eligible for a Youth Offender Parole hearing six years
prior to their parole eligibility date to discuss what will be needed
to be parole ready.

CALIFORNIA

Senate Bill 219 expanded eligibility for the Alternative Custody
Program to persons with a mental health or medical diagnosis.
Prior to the law change, applicants with health problems like
chronic medical and dental conditions were reportedly denied.
Currently, the law authorizes the Secretary of the Department
6 The Sentencing Project

of Corrections and Rehabilitation to offer a program under
which certain incarcerated persons who are committed to state
prison may be allowed to participate in a voluntary alternative
custody program in lieu of confinement in state prison. Existing
law defines an alternative custody sentence to include confinement
to a residential home, a residential drug or treatment program,
or a transitional care facility that offers appropriate services.
The policy authorizes eligibility for certain incarcerated persons
sentenced to determinate sentences subject to specified
disqualifying criteria.

RECLASSIFIED
FELONY DRUG
POSSESSION AS A MISDEMEANOR; SCALED
BACK DRUG PENALTY ENHANCEMENT ZONES

CONNECTICUT

Lawmakers passed House Bill 7104, a measure championed by
Governor Dannel Malloy. The law’s provisions include revising
the penalty structure for drug possession crimes, expanding
sentencing alternatives for prison-bound defendants, reclassifying
felony drug possession to a misdemeanor, and scaling back drug
penalty enhancement zones for certain offenses. Specifically the
provisions included: a new penalty structure that classifies
possession of cocaine, heroin, marijuana or any amount of
another illegal drug as a Class A misdemeanor, punishable by
up to one year in prison for a first offense; expanding the
sentencing alternative of home confinement to persons convicted
under the new drug possession penalty structure; expanding
application of the law from the previous range of possession
of 0.5 – 4 ounces of marijuana or controlled substances not
classified as narcotics or hallucinogens; and reclassifying penalty
enhancements for possession crimes within 1,500 feet of an
elementary or secondary school by someone who is not attending
the school, or a licensed day care center. Previously, persons
convicted of felony possession in restricted zones were sentenced
to mandatory two-year prison terms running consecutively to
the prison term imposed for the underlying possession crime,
although a judge could depart from the mandatory under certain
circumstances.

INDIANA

CHANGED SENTENCE MODIFICATION
PROCESS

Lawmakers changed the state’s sentence modification
process with the passage of Senate Bill 174. Under the previous
law, persons who did not have credit-restricted sentences could
petition twice for a sentence modification during the same prison
sentence. If the prosecuting attorney did not approve the petition,
the court had to set a hearing to consider the petition. The new
legislation allows persons sentenced before July 1, 2014 to
petition for sentence modification on the same terms as persons
sentenced after that date. The measure also permits persons
sentenced for violent offenses, including burglary, to petition
for a sentence modification within 365 days of sentencing
without the consent of the prosecuting attorney.

RECLASSIFIED CERTAIN DRUG
POSSESSION OFFENSES FROM
FELONIES TO MISDEMEANORS
Policymakers reclassified certain drug possession
offenses from a Class C felony to a Class D
misdemeanor with the passage of Legislative
Document 113. The scale of the punishment
differential is substantial between a Class C felony and a Class
D misdemeanor: the maximum misdemeanor sentence is 364
days in jail while a Class C felony conviction can result in a
maximum five year prison sentence. However, policymakers
also approved Legislative Document 1246, a measure that
stiffened penalties for simple possession of cocaine and fentanyl
powder. Officials have announced plans to resolve the conflict
in 2016.

MAINE

SCALED BACK CERTAIN
MANDATORY MINIMUMS
FOR DRUG OFFENSES

MARYLAND

House Bill 121 authorized a court to
depart from specified mandatory
minimum sentences for certain crimes, generally involving the
manufacture, sale, and distribution of illegal drugs. The law
authorizes judges to depart from sentencing enhancements for
defendants with prior offenses ranging in sentence length from
2 to 40 years. Departures are allowed based on considerations
of the nature of the crime, mitigating circumstances, defendant’s
character, and chances of successful rehabilitation. HB121 also

clarifies that a person convicted of any of the specified offenses
is not prohibited from participation in a specified drug treatment
program because of the length of sentence. The law change is
not retroactive.

MONTANA

CREATED
SENTENCING
COMMISSION TO
ADDRESS
SENTENCING POLICY

Lawmakers established a Commission on Sentencing with the
passage of Senate Bill 224. The commission is authorized to
assess various issues relating to the state’s prison system including:
conducting an empirical study on the impact of existing
sentencing policies, identifying strategies to safely reduce the
state’s prison population, and addressing racial and ethnic
disparities in the criminal justice system.

NEBRASKA

ABOLISHED THE DEATH
PENALTY; AUTHORIZED
PRISON POPULATION
REDUCTION MEASURES.

A bipartisan coalition of lawmakers
abolished the death penalty with the passage of Legislative
Bill 268. The measure was vetoed by the governor, but overridden
with broad legislative support. The law change aligns Nebraska
with the 19 other states that have eliminated the death penalty
as a sentencing option. Since 2007, six states have abolished
capital punishment: Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey,
New Mexico, and New York. In 2016, Nebraska voters will vote
on a ballot measure that could reinstate the death penalty.
Legislative Bill 605 addressed chronic prison overcrowding in
the state prison system, including: raising property thresholds
for several theft offenses to account for inflation and requiring
that misdemeanor sentences be served in a county jail except
when served concurrently with felony sentences. LB 605 revised
sentencing procedures for certain low level felony offenses to
authorize expanded use of probation and established options
for responding to probation violations, including increments of
3-30 day jail sentences. Projections are that the law change will
result in a decline of 1,000 incarcerated persons over five years
and avoid correctional expenditures of $300 million in future
costs. Lastly, a provision of the measure directs expected savings
towards reinvestment in supervision services for individuals
monitored under post-release supervision.

The State of Sentencing 2015: Developments in Policy and Practice 7

AUTHORIZED JUDICIAL
DEPARTURES FOR CERTAIN
DRUG MANDATORY
MINIMUMS;
NORTH DAKOTA RECLASSIFIED CERTAIN
FELONY PENALTIES TO MISDEMEANORS
House Bill 1030 allows judicial departures from certain
mandatory minimums for drug offenses after considering the
nature of the crime, the character of the defendant, and the
defendant’s chances for successful rehabilitation. Under the new
law, judges can depart from a mandatory minimum sentence if
they state for the record why imposing it would be unfair and
unnecessary for public safety. Sentencing judges are required to
report the number of departures to the state court administrator
for an annual report.
Senate Bill 2030 reclassified penalties for personal-use drug
paraphernalia from a felony to misdemeanor for certain drug
offenses, including methamphetamine and cocaine. Prior law
categorized possession of drug paraphernalia as a Class C felony
punishable by a maximum prison term of five years. The law
change expands prosecutorial discretion in charging defendants
with no prior offenses; persons with previous drug paraphernalia
charges still face a felony charge. Previously, the state categorized
possession of marijuana paraphernalia as a Class A misdemeanor;
the law reclassified that offense to a Class B misdemeanor, the
same as for marijuana possession.

EXPANDED JUDICIAL
DISCRETION FOR
CERTAIN OFFENSES;
MODIFIED SENTENCE
OKLAHOMA REDUCTION POLICY;
SCALED BACK LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE
SENTENCES FOR CERTAIN OFFENSES
House Bill 1518 will allow judges to depart from mandatory
minimum sentences for certain offenses, resulting in shorter
prison terms. The legislation expands judicial discretion in cases
where the sentencing judge determines the mandatory minimum
to be unfair and if the defendant does not pose a risk to public
safety.

8 The Sentencing Project

Lawmakers also expanded sentence modification policies through
the passage of House Bill 1548. The bill authorizes courts to
reduce sentences for individuals who successfully complete the
Department of Corrections’ drug offender work camp program.
Legislators also relaxed excessive punishments for individuals
with prior drug convictions. House Bill 1574 modified the
penalty for persons convicted of two or more previous felony
violations of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances
Act from life without parole to a mandatory minimum of 20
years and a maximum of life in prison or life without parole.
The law limits mandatory sentences of life without parole to
defendants with two or more trafficking convictions.
Governor Mary Fallin issued a memo directing the Department
of Corrections to allow prisoners sentenced for violent offenses
to earn good time, resulting in sentence reductions. Eligible
prisoners were those sentenced under the state’s truth-insentencing structure, requiring persons convicted of 22 offenses
to serve a minimum of 85 percent of their time. These individuals
previously could not earn good time towards a sentence reduction;
the change now allows them to earn good time starting at the
beginning of their sentence that will be applied when they reach
their 85 percent minimum. Reports indicate that 6,000
incarcerated persons may be affected by the policy change,
resulting in $2.3 million in correctional savings. Legislators had
attempted to pass a similar statutory reform, but failed to do
so.

REFORMED FELONY PROPERTY
THRESHOLDS
House Bill 1396 included
several provisions including
raising property threshold
amounts that trigger felony
theft offenses for a range of
criminal code violations. The
impact on the state’s prison system is
unknown, but there may be a decline
in the number of persons sentenced to
felony probation or incarceration. The measure also expanded
the punishment range for fraudulent transfer of a motor vehicle,
which is expected to increase demands on the state’s prison
system.

TEXAS

JUSTICE REINVESTMENT
INITIATIVES
During 2015, at least three states – Alabama, Maryland, and
Utah – advanced legislation under the Justice Reinvestment
Initiative, an effort to address key drivers of growth in state
prison systems.
•	

Alabama lawmakers authorized Senate Bill 67, a
comprehensive measure that includes: establishing a new
felony class for certain low-level offenses; authorizing certain
incarcerated persons to serve “split” sentences which
mandate post-release supervision following a minimum
prison term; mandating the Parole Board to develop and
implement parole guidelines governed by a risk assessment
that considers in-prison conduct and other factors in the
determination of release; and requiring the governor to
establish the Alabama Criminal Justice Oversight and
Implementation Council to monitor the legislation’s
implementation. State officials estimate the law change will
reduce the prison population by 4,200, resulting in a savings
of more than $380 million in future correctional costs and
provide supervision for 3,000 more people upon release
from prison.

•	

Maryland policymakers established a Justice Reinvestment
Coordinating Council with the passage of Senate Bill 602.
The law governs a data-driven approach to develop a
statewide framework for sentencing and corrections
policies to reduce Maryland’s incarcerated population,
reduce spending on corrections, and prioritize avoided
correctional expenditures in strategies to increase public
safety and reduce recidivism. The JRCC concluded its work
in late 2015 and submitted recommendations to Governor
Larry Hogan. Policy recommendations included sentence
reductions for certain drug offenses, increased parole grant
rates, and removing some of the barriers to reentry.

•	

Utah lawmakers passed House Bill 348, which included:
scaling back drug-free zones from 1,000 to 100 feet and
limiting enhanced sentences in the zones to times when
children are most likely to be present; restricting automatic
sentence increases in drug zones to activities involving the
sale and distribution of drugs rather than simple possession;
eliminating weight thresholds for all marijuana offenses and
reclassifying marijuana possession (including conduct
previously classified as a third-degree felony or a Class A
misdemeanor) to a Class B misdemeanor among other
changes.

The State of Sentencing 2015: Developments in Policy and Practice 9

PROBATION AND PAROLE
Lawmakers in at least six states authorized policy reforms
governing community supervision practices for probation and
parole. Nationally, 4.7 million men and women are supervised
in the community. Addressing probation and parole practices
is a major consideration in the project to scale back the nation’s
incarceration rate. Initiatives that divert persons who violate
technical conditions of probation or parole can substantially
reduce admissions to prison. During 2015, community supervision
reform initiatives included streamlining parole revocation
proceedings, modifying clemency processes, and authorizing
sentence reduction policies for probation or parole.

MODIFIED PAROLE REVOCATION
PROCESS
House Bill 1371 codified practices
governing the state’s parole revocation
process for persons who commit technical
violations while on parole supervision.
According to the new law, the parole officer must prepare a
violation report within three days to request a hearing while the
parole board must issue a warrant. The law requires that a parole
revocation hearing be held within 14 days of a parolee’s arrest;
within 21 days of the hearing the judge must submit a hearing
report to the parole board and to the parolee.

ARKANSAS

CONNECTICUT
ENACTED CHANGES TO PAROLE PROCESS
House Bill 7104 included several provisions governing the
parole process. The law created a procedure to allow the board
to consider certain inmates for release on parole without a
hearing. Eligible persons include: individuals not convicted of
a crime involving a victim; persons not convicted of a violent
crime or other specified crimes, including second degree burglary
or criminally negligent homicide; and persons who are not
prohibited from parole for any other reason. The law allows
evaluation of parole eligibility without a hearing by using a riskbased evaluation and release criteria, along with a review of the
10 The Sentencing Project

individual’s accountability plan, including the environment to
which he or she plans to return.

AUTHORIZED CHANGES TO
PROBATION AND PAROLE
SYSTEM
Lawmakers authorized an overhaul of the
state’s probation and parole system with
passage of House Bill 310. The bill creates
a new agency, the Department of
Community Supervision, to oversee felony probation and parole.
Lawmakers advanced the reform following studies that found
80 percent of Georgia’s probationers are supervised by private
companies that contract with local governments; the private
companies have been collecting more money from probationers
than required by the court. The measure authorizes judges to
convert supervision fines to community service hours if
individuals cannot pay off their criminal justice debt, and limits
probation fees in cases that are “pay-only,” where people are
put on probation to pay off a fine or debt.

GEORGIA

MODIFIED EXECUTIVE
CLEMENCY PROCESS
House Bill 43 allows the
governor to consider executive
clemency applications even if
the Board of Pardons and Parole
declines to hold a hearing or
recommends clemency denial. Previously, the board served in
a gatekeeping capacity; the new law changes the board’s role to
advisory on applications for executive clemency. The previous
law granted the board the authority to deny clemency, although
only the governor could grant clemency. Under the old law,
clemency applications would only be forwarded to the governor
if the board recommended it; there was an exception for death
penalty cases.

MONTANA

AUTHORIZED CHANGES
GOVERNING PAROLE
REVOCATION
POLICY AND
SENTENCE
REDUCTIONS

TEXAS

House Bill 710 expands the use
of summonses for persons awaiting
hearings to determine if they have
violated the conditions of parole supervision. The Parole
Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDJC)
can issue warrants for persons on parole or under mandatory
supervision accused of violating the terms of their release or
committing a new crime. These individuals are incarcerated in
a county jail until a hearing is held to decide whether to revoke
them to prison or release them back to the community. Prior
to the passage of HB 710, state law authorized the Parole
Division to issue a summons under limited circumstances, a
practice that did not result in jail detention. The new law expanded
the use of summonses in two situations: first, for parolees
accused of administrative violations who have been under
supervision for at least one year; and second, for parolees accused
of a Class C misdemeanor who have a stable job, stable home,
and no history of family violence.

House Bill 1546 strengthened the sentence reduction policy
for persons convicted of state jail felonies and sentenced to
prison. During 2011, the legislature authorized sentence
reductions for persons sentenced to a state jail felony. The new
law allows judges to determine eligibility at sentencing as opposed
to post-conviction. For persons determined to be eligible, the
law requires the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to credit
up to one-fifth of the sentence for participation in specified
programs for those sentenced to a state jail felony. For persons
who are not determined eligible at sentencing, TDCJ will provide
notification of program participation to sentencing judges, who
may then grant credit time.

ALLOWED EARNED REDUCTION
CREDITS FOR PROBATION AND
PAROLE
The state’s JRI measure, House Bill 348, also
included several provisions governing changes
to probation and parole policies. The law
authorized a policy of earning reduction credits
of 30 days for each month persons monitored
on probation or parole comply with supervision. The bill also
directed the state’s Sentencing Commission to create a matrix
regulating parole and probation practices that rewards good
behavior and provides graduated sanctions, including short jail
stays for technical violations.

UTAH

The State of Sentencing 2015: Developments in Policy and Practice 11

COLLATERAL CONSEQUENCES
Officials in at least 14 states enacted policies to address the
collateral impacts of a criminal conviction. Collateral
consequences can exclude individuals from certain job
opportunities, limit civic participation, and eliminate eligibility
for certain public benefits. These policies and practices vary
widely across jurisdictions and serve to isolate and marginalize
justice involved persons. During 2015, political leaders expanded
voting rights to certain persons with felony convictions, addressed
the federal lifetime ban on public benefits for persons with
felony drug convictions, and established fair chance hiring
policies to improve employment outcomes for persons with
criminal convictions.

asserting that community supervision was “functionally
equivalent” to parole; civil rights groups filed a lawsuit to
challenge that interpretation. Padilla’s 2015 directive resulted
in new guidance to election officials regarding voting
eligibility for persons under felony community supervision.
•	

Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear issued an executive order
automatically restoring voting rights to an estimated 100,000
persons with non-violent felony convictions who have
completed their sentences. Kentucky is one of only four
states, along with Iowa, Florida, and Virginia, which
disenfranchise all persons with felony convictions even after
completion of sentence. Voting rights in these states can
only be restored through action of a governor or pardons
board. An estimated 243,000 Kentuckians with felony
convictions have lost their right to vote, including 180,000
who have completed their sentence. In late 2015, new
governor Matt Bevin reversed the executive order, stating
““While I have been a vocal supporter of the restoration
of rights it is an issue that must be addressed through the
legislature and by the will of the people.” The reversal is
prospective, and did not remove the voting rights of the
individuals impacted by Beshear’s action.

•	

The Maryland General Assembly passed House Bill 980,
restoring the vote to nearly 40,000 Maryland citizens living
in the community who are under felony probation or parole
supervision; the governor vetoed the legislation, but the
veto was overridden in early 2016.

CALIFORNIA, KENTUCKY AND
MARYLAND
EXPANDED VOTING RIGHTS TO PERSONS WITH
FELONY CONVICTIONS
Nationally, 5.85 million Americans are prohibited from voting
due to laws that disenfranchise citizens convicted of felony
offenses. Felony disenfranchisement policies vary by state,
producing a wide range of impacts.
•	

Approximately, 60,000 individuals with prior felony
convictions were granted the right to vote in California.
California is one of 35 states that deny voting rights to
persons on parole, but a recent change in practice expanded
voting rights to persons with realignment offenses. In 2011,
California lawmakers enacted a “Realignment” policy
(Assembly Bill 109). One salient provision allowed that
prisoners with eligible low-level offenses would be released
to county probation supervision instead of to state parole
supervision. California Secretary of State Alex Padilla
determined the state would settle litigation over laws that
had barred persons on community supervision for low-level
felony convictions from voting. Under the previous
administration, then-Secretary of State Debra Bowen told
election officials to extend the state’s ban on felon
enfranchisement to individuals with realignment offenses,

12 The Sentencing Project

ALABAMA AND TEXAS
ADDRESSED PUBLIC BENEFITS BANS FOR
PERSONS WITH FELONY DRUG OFFENSES
Legislative reform to modify the federal food stamp ban was
enacted in Alabama and Texas. In 1996, the Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act imposed a lifetime
denial of federal benefits for cash and food assistance to people
convicted in state or federal courts of felony drug offenses; the
ban is imposed for no other offenses but drug crimes. States

can opt out of the federal ban or modify it by authorizing
legislative reform.
•	

•	

Alabama lawmakers included a provision in Senate Bill 67
that expands eligibility for the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families program and/or the federal Supplemental
Nutrition Assistance Program to persons with felony drug
convictions. Lawmakers allowed persons with felony drug
convictions to access public benefits after completing their
sentence or if they are satisfactorily serving a probation
sentence.
Texas lawmakers expanded food stamp eligibility to persons
with felony drug convictions. The measure was included in
Senate Bill 200 — a sunset law partially consolidating the
state’s health and human services system -- and authorized
participation for persons with felony drug convictions in
the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
The provision allows eligible persons who complete their
sentences to receive food assistance, though violating terms
of parole could result in a two-year disqualification. If
persons with prior felony drug convictions are convicted
of a new felony drug offense, the lifetime ban is reinstated.

the Georgia Council on Criminal Justice Reform, which had
recommended the policy change in a report submitted to
Governor Deal in 2014.
•	

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo used his authority to
implement 12 recommendations by the Council on
Community Re-Entry and Reintegration to address barriers
faced by persons with criminal convictions. One
recommendation resulted in the adoption of a fair chance
hiring policy whereby job applicants for positions in New
York state agencies will not be required to discuss or disclose
information about prior convictions until and unless the
agency has interviewed the candidate and is considering
employment. Other recommendations provided antidiscrimination guidance for housing in New York-financed
public housing and established a presumption towards
granting an occupational license for persons with criminal
records.

•	

Ohio officials and lawmakers authorized a “ban the box”
policy to govern civil service applications. House Bill 56
prohibits public employers, including state and required
local jurisdictions, from including questions on job
applications about past felony convictions. Prior to the
statutory change, state officials adopted an administrative
change that provided guidance on state employment
applications regarding questions on prior felony convictions.
The administrative policy directed that employment should
not be denied solely on the basis of a prior conviction unless
consideration of criminal involvement is authorized by
federal or state law.

•	

Oregon lawmakers passed House Bill 3052, a measure that
prohibits employers from including questions about
applicants’ criminal history on job applications. The
legislation does not prohibit employers from notifying
applicants that they will later be required to disclose
convictions or that a criminal background check will be
conducted later in the hiring process. The measure specifically
states that it does not exclude an employer from considering
convictions when making hiring decisions. The bill allows
applicants to file an administrative charge with the Oregon
Bureau of Labor and Industries if initial job applications
contain questions about criminal history.

•	

Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe issued an executive
order banning the state from asking about prospective
employees’ criminal histories at the initial application stage
in an effort to improve employment opportunities for
persons with criminal records. The policy change eliminated

GEORGIA, NEW YORK, OHIO, OREGON,
AND VIRGINIA
ESTABLISHED FAIR CHANCE HIRING POLICIES
FOR PERSONS WITH CRIMINAL RECORDS
Recent reforms expanded the number of states with fair chance
hiring policies to 19. The reform efforts, also known as “ban
the box,” refer to questions of arrest or conviction on employment
applications. Officials reformed these policies through a range
of mechanisms, including gubernatorial executive orders and
state legislation. States that adopted policies include: California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey,
New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont,
and Virginia.
•	

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal issued an executive order
banning state agencies from requiring prospective job
applicants to disclose their criminal histories in the initial
application stage. The directive requires employers to provide
applicants an opportunity to discuss their past offenses, as
well as their efforts to rehabilitate themselves, during the
interview process. The legislature established a commission,

The State of Sentencing 2015: Developments in Policy and Practice 13

questions about criminal histories from most state jobs,
with the exception of “sensitive” jobs or jobs where the
applicant’s conviction relates specifically to the job. The
order only allows criminal background checks after an
applicant’s qualifications are determined and the person
signs a waiver allowing the release of his or her criminal
history. The state Senate advanced a similar legislative remedy
with Senate Bill 1017, but given the failure of the House
of Delegates to do so, the governor issued the executive
order.

CONNECTICUT
ADDRESSED COLLATERAL IMPACTS OF
FELONY CONVICTION FOR CERTAIN DRUG
OFFENSES
The state’s criminal justice reform vehicle, House Bill 7104,
addressed certain collateral impacts of a felony conviction. The
measure’s provision that reclassified felony drug possession to
a misdemeanor also resulted in removing certain consequences
of a conviction including loss of voting rights for those sentenced
to prison or on parole, disqualifications from jury duty; and
denial or a revoking of certain state-professional licenses.

is determined to be a risk to public safety. Occupational licenses
governed by the law change include interior design, landscape
architecture, cosmetology/barbering and other areas requiring
special board licensing.
Oklahoma policy makers passed House Bill 2179, legislation
that improves the process for justice involved persons to obtain
a commercial driver’s license once they have been released from
prison. Prior to the law change, formerly incarcerated persons
were required to pay off all fees and fines before getting a
suspended license reinstated. They could do so by paying monthly
toward their fines; HB 2179 extends the practice to those seeking
a commercial driver’s license.

CHALLENGED AUTOMATIC
EMPLOYMENT BANS FOR
CERTAIN JOBS

PENNSYLVANIA

The Commonwealth Court in
Pennsylvania unanimously ruled that
a state law that restricted persons with criminal convictions from
full-time employment in nursing homes or long-term-care
facilities was unconstitutional. The court found, by a 7-0 vote,
that the law violated the due process rights of otherwise lawabiding people who may have had prior justice system involvement
but no longer pose a risk to public safety.

AUTHORIZED CHANGES TO
EXPUNGEMENT POLICY
House Bill 1302 expanded criminal records
eligible for expungement to include arrests for
certain charges and juvenile delinquency
allegations that did not result in conviction. The
measure specifies that a person may file for expungement of an
arrest charge or juvenile delinquency adjudication that did not
result in a conviction.

INDIANA

OKLAHOMA

ADDRESSED
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE
RESTRICTIONS AND
DRIVER’S LICENSES

House Bill 2168 addressed occupational license restrictions.
Prior to the law change, any felony conviction might affect
licensure, registration or certification. The measure limits license
denials or revocations to instances of persons convicted of a
felony offense within the previous five years and where the
conviction substantially relates to the occupation or the individual
14 The Sentencing Project

TEXAS

MODIFIED CHILD SUPPORT
POLICY FOR INCARCERATED
PARENTS;
REFORMED POLICY
GOVERNING
RENTAL MARKET
FOR PERSONS
WITH FELONY
CONVICTIONS; EXPANDED
EXPUNGEMENT POLICY

State lawmakers reformed several policies to address the collateral
consequences of a conviction. Reforms included eliminating
the minimum wage presumption for certain incarcerated persons
to determine child support orders, addressing policies that
prevent landlords from renting to persons with criminal records,
and expanding the expungement policy to include certain
offenses.

House Bill 943 amended the Texas family code to eliminate
the minimum wage presumption for noncustodial parents who
are in a state prison or jail for longer than 90 days for the purpose
of establishing child support orders.
House Bill 1510 amended the state’s property code to establish
that a cause of action does not accrue against a landlord or a
landlord’s manager or agent solely for leasing a dwelling to a
tenant with a criminal record. The bill does not preclude a cause
of action for negligence in leasing if the tenant was convicted
of a more serious offense or is subject to sex offender registration
and the landlord, manager, or agent knew or should have known
of the conviction or adjudication.
Senate Bill 1902 expanded the state’s expungement policy by
authorizing orders of nondisclosure (OND) and discharge from
a term of deferred adjudication community supervision to be
issued for certain misdemeanor offenses. Persons can have their
record expunged if they prove their eligibility to the court and
pay a $28 fee. The measure expands current eligibility for an
OND to persons convicted of a first offense of non-violent or
non-sexual misdemeanors, and who have completed their term
of community supervision or incarceration. Depending upon
the offense and type of adjudication, certain waiting periods are
mandated to ensure that individuals can prove to the court that
they are reformed prior to petitioning for an OND. The policy
excludes assaultive offenses, disorderly conduct, and weapons
charges, among other offenses.

VIRGINIA

ALLOWED FIREARM
POSSESSION FOR CERTAIN
JUSTICE-INVOLVED
PERSONS

House Bill 1666 eased the
application process for possession of a firearm for eligible
persons with felony convictions or a juvenile adjudication of
delinquency of certain offenses. Individuals eligible to have their
rights restored to possess firearms can now petition the circuit
court where the felony conviction or adjudication of delinquency
occurred. Under the previous law, individuals were only permitted
to petition the circuit court in the jurisdiction where they resided.

RESTORED VOTING RIGHTS
TO PERSONS WITH CERTAIN
FELONY CONVICTIONS

WYOMING

House Bill 15 required the state’s
Department of Corrections (DOC) to
automatically issue a certificate of voting rights for persons with
first-time, non-violent felony convictions who complete their
sentence. Individuals who were convicted prior to 2016 and
those with out-of-state and federal convictions must apply for
a restoration of rights after their sentence is completed. The
legislation also requires that a denial of a certificate of restoration
of voting rights is subject to judicial review and the DOC must
notify the Secretary of State when an individual’s voting rights
are restored.

The State of Sentencing 2015: Developments in Policy and Practice 15

JUVENILE JUSTICE
Officials continued to scale back harsh juvenile justice policies,
thus continuing a trend toward reductions in the incarcerated
juvenile population and a downsizing of juvenile facilities. During
2015, lawmakers in at least ten states authorized sentencing
options for justice-involved youth and required that juveniles
sentenced to confinement be held in youth facilities. Several
states advanced measures to eliminate juvenile life without parole
in compliance with the 2012 Supreme Court decision in Miller
v. Alabama. States also addressed “raise the age” requirements,
resulting in modifying age-specific policies whereby juvenile
defendants are automatically charged as adults. States also
restricted law enforcement interactions for truancy violations.

the maximum prison term that may apply and whether the
person may be eligible for release under the bill’s alternative
parole eligibility rules.
•	

House Bill 2471 in Illinois eliminated mandatory life without
parole for persons sentenced as juveniles and required judges
to consider mitigating factors of youth prior to sentencing.
The law allowed judges to not impose sentencing
enhancements that extend the length of a defendant’s
sentence.

•	

In Nevada, Assembly Bill 267 abolished juvenile life without
parole as a sentencing option. The bill requires courts to
recognize that youth are different at sentencing and to
consider age as a mitigating factor. Persons who were under
the age of 18 and sentenced for non-homicide offenses are
eligible for parole review after serving a minimum of 15
years; juveniles convicted of homicide offenses are eligible
for parole review after serving a minimum of 20 years. Life
without parole remains a sentencing option for juveniles
convicted of homicide of more than one person.

•	

In Vermont, House Bill 62 eliminated life without parole
as a sentencing option for persons under age 18 at the time
of their offense; the measure contained no provisions
regarding minimum time served before parole eligibility.
Prior to the law change, no juveniles were serving life without
parole sentences despite the sentencing option.

CONNECTICUT, ILLINOIS, NEVADA,
AND VERMONT
ELIMINATING JUVENILE LIFE WITHOUT PAROLE
During 2015 several states authorized legislation in response to
Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court decision banning mandatory
life-without-parole sentences for justice involved youth. Prior
to this, Hawaii, West Virginia, Delaware, Massachusetts, Wyoming,
and Texas had eliminated juvenile life without parole in recent
years.
•	

In Connecticut, Senate Bill 796 revised laws that govern
sentencing and parole release policies for individuals under
the age of 18 at the time of their criminal offense by
retroactively eliminating life sentences for capital felony and
arson murder, and convictions for murder with special
circumstances. The bill established a parole policy that guides
release decisions and authorizes parole eligibility for persons
sentenced to more than ten years in prison for crimes
occurring under age 18. The measure also directs criminal
courts, in sentencing persons convicted of a violent felony
committed between ages 14-18, to consider certain mitigating
factors of youth, including lack of maturity and reduced
competency to appreciate the risks and consequences of
their actions. Criminal courts are also required to indicate

16 The Sentencing Project

CONNECTICUT AND ILLINOIS
RAISED THE AGE FOR JUVENILE DEFENDANTS
Advocacy efforts targeted at “raising the age” have been focused
on ensuring that justice-involved youth younger than 18 are
tried in the juvenile court system rather than the adult court
system. 
•	

In Connecticut, House Bill 7050 eliminated automatic
transfers to adult court for children ages 14-17 charged with
certain class B felonies: first-degree manslaughter, first-

degree robbery without a deadly weapon, and certain firstdegree burglary offenses. The measure raised the minimum
age from 14 to 15 for automatic transfer for other class B
felonies.
•	

Illinois lawmakers authorized House Bill 3718, a measure
that amends the state’s Juvenile Court Act, to expand juvenile
court discretion to limit automatic transfer currently triggered
by age and certain charged offenses. The prior law authorized
a State’s Attorney to automatically transfer a juvenile
defendant to adult court simply based on age and charge.

TEXAS AND WEST VIRGINIA
ENACTED TRUANCY ENFORCEMENT REFORMS
Two states, Texas and West Virginia, restricted law enforcement
interactions for truancy violations among students. In recent
years school officials have increasingly relied on court referrals
to enforce truancy rules.
•	

•	

Under House Bill 2398, Texas students who miss school
will no longer face fines (unless found in contempt of a
court order), arrest, or jail time. Students who accumulate
unexcused absences will have access to truancy prevention
programs, including behavior modification plans or in-school
community service. Students who are still chronically absent
will be referred to truancy court by school administrators
where the problem will be treated as a civil rather than
criminal matter. Court remedies include requiring the student
to participate in therapeutic interventions or tutoring.
West Virginia House Bill 2550 authorized statutory changes
governing the state’s truancy provisions. The new law offers
guidance to schools to send a letter to parents or guardians
after three unexcused absences and to host a meeting with
a student’s family after five absences. The measure codifies
that state courts will not get involved in truancy cases unless
there are ten unexcused absences. Also during this legislative
session comprehensive juvenile justice reform legislation
- Senate Bill 393 (described below) - authorized funding to
support the hiring of truancy diversion specialists.

ALLOWED JUVENILES
SENTENCED AS ADULTS TO
SERVE TIME IN YOUTH
DETENTION

KANSAS

House Bill 2336 allows juveniles convicted as “adults” to be
sentenced to juvenile facilities rather than be required to serve
their term in an adult prison. The bill also requires the sentencing
court to administer a risk assessment or review a risk assessment
conducted within the previous six months.

EXPANDED SENTENCING
OPTIONS UNDER
AMENDMENTS TO ADULT
CERTIFICATION LAW
Senate File 944 amended the juvenile
code’s adult certification law and modified
the juvenile jurisdiction code. The bill
allows a court to not sentence a juvenile to a mandatory minimum
sentence that would otherwise be required for the charged
offense.

MINNESOTA

ESTABLISHED PARDON
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
JUVENILES
Governor Andrew Cuomo established
an initiative to automatically pardon
thousands of people who were convicted
of non-violent crimes as teenagers. Individuals convicted of a
non-violent crime at the age of 16 or 17 and who have not been
convicted of any crime for at least 10 years are eligible for a
pardon. The initiative does not expunge the felony conviction,
but rather grants qualifying individuals a certificate of
rehabilitation resulting in formal recognition that they are in
good standing with the state.

NEW YORK

AUTHORIZED AUTOMATIC
EXPUNGEMENT FOR CERTAIN
JUVENILES

SOUTH CAROLINA

Senate Bill 133 allowed
automatic expungement of
nonviolent convictions for qualifying juvenile records. The
measure established a process where individuals can request in
writing to have a nonviolent offense they committed as minors
The State of Sentencing 2015: Developments in Policy and Practice 17

to be permanently erased from their record. Juvenile records
cannot be expunged if the petitioner has a prior conviction for
an offense that would carry a maximum term of imprisonment
of five years or more if committed by an adult.

ESTABLISHED OPTIONS TO
ADDRESS SUBSTANCE
ABUSE AMONG JUVENILES

SOUTH DAKOTA

Senate Bill 73 expanded access to
community-based programs to
assist youth with substance abuse problems. The initiative also
sought to meet the needs of juveniles in need of therapeutic
services and to provide wrap-around care. The measure included
a provision to incentivize counties to divert justice-involved
youth from the system so as to not acquire a criminal record.

REQUIRED CERTAIN YOUTH
CONVICTED AS ADULTS TO
SERVE SENTENCE IN A
JUVENILE FACILITY;
ADDRESSED JUSTICEWASHINGTON INVOLVED DEBT FOR
JUVENILES; MODIFIED AUTOMATIC TRANSFER
POLICY
House Bill 1674 requires juveniles sentenced as adults and who
are expected to complete their sentence prior to their 21st birthday
to be transferred from the Department of Corrections (DOC)
to the Department of Social and Health Services. Despite the
transfer, the DOC retains authority over custody decisions and
must approve any leave from the juvenile facility. The measure
provides statutory guidance that recognizes that juvenile
defendants are different than adults.
Senate Bill 5564 addressed obligations for criminal court fines
and restitution, as well as court sealing for certain juvenile records.
The measure eliminates most non-restitution fines for justice
involved youth and in certain cases would allow them to do
community service instead of paying victim restitution. Courts
are allowed to sentence juveniles not sentenced for serious
offenses for up to seven hours of community restitution as long
as the sentence is practical. When juveniles pay their restitution
and meet other specified criteria, the court is authorized to seal
their records. The bill prohibits cities, towns, and counties from
imposing financial obligations for juvenile offenses unless
specifically authorized by statute.
18 The Sentencing Project

Lawmakers also authorized Senate Bill 5652, a measure changing
the policy governing transfers to adult court. Prior law required
certain juveniles to be tried in adult court for specified offenses.
SB 5652 eliminated exclusive adult court jurisdiction for violent
offenses and other practices governed by state law. For specified
juvenile offenses, courts must hold a special hearing – unless
waived by the courts, the parties, and their counsel – to consider
individualized criteria in determining whether to transfer the
juvenile defendant to adult court.

EXPANDED COMMUNITY-BASED
ALTERNATIVES FOR ELIGIBLE
JUSTICE-INVOLVED YOUTH
Senate Bill 393 authorized several
policy changes to the state’s juvenile
justice system. Provisions included establishing a two-step
diversion process that expands community-based alternatives
such as restorative justice programs, substance abuse, therapeutic
health programs, and family therapies prior to the filing of a
juvenile petition for a status offense or misdemeanor. The
measure prioritized funding to expand capacity for state programs
to serve justice-involved youth in their homes rather than in
out-of-home placements.

WEST VIRGINIA

CONCLUSION
In recent years the issue of mass incarceration has gained broader
attention among diverse constituencies. Over the last decade
the political environment shaping sentencing laws has evolved
to being “smart on crime” to counter the “tough on crime”
framework of a previous era.
Many of the reforms adopted in recent years are likely to have
only a modest impact on rates of incarceration, but the continued
pace of change in policy and practice suggests strong interest
among state officials in reconsidering sentencing and collateral
consequences. More substantial remedies will be required to
significantly reduce the nation’s high rate of incarceration
Given the limited impact of incarceration on crime, many
observers are hopeful that state lawmakers will advance future
reforms to scale back mass incarceration by dealing with the
severity of punishment. Meaningful reforms would involve
eliminating or repealing mandatory minimum policies; scaling
back “three strikes” laws and recidivist statutes; addressing
statutory penalties mandating life without the possibility of
parole for certain offenses; and reconsidering the length of
prison terms in regard to the goal of public safety.

The State of Sentencing 2015: Developments in Policy and Practice 19

The State of Sentencing 2015: Developments
in Policy and Practice
Nicole D. Porter
February 2016

Related publications by The Sentencing Project:
•	
•	
•	
1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor
Washington, D.C. 20036
Tel: 202.628.0871
Fax: 202.628.1091
sentencingproject.org

State Criminal Justice Advocacy in a Conservative Environment
(2015)
Black Lives Matter: Eliminating Racial Inequity in the Criminal Justice
System (2015)
The State of Sentencing 2014: Developments in Policy and Practice
(2015)

The Sentencing Project works for a fair and effective U.S. justice system by
promoting reforms in sentencing policy, addressing unjust racial disparities and
practices, and advocating for alternatives to incarceration.