Is life without parole an effective way to reduce violent crime? An empirical assessment

Abstract

Research Summary: By taking advantage of data published by the Sentencing Project to analyze whether states that use life without parole (LWOP) more often experience lower violent crime rates or greater reductions in violent crime, this study is the first to empirically assess the crimereducing potential of LWOP sentences. The results suggest that LWOP might produce a small absolute reduction in violent crime but that it is no more effective than life with parole. Policy Implications: Despite reductions in the use of the death penalty, LWOP has expanded dramatically-and at a much faster rate-over the last quarter century. This expansion has come at great financial and human costs and has not been distributed equally throughout the population. As such, the public policy debate over the use of LWOP is likely to intensify. Yet, to date, there have been no empirical assessments of LWOP's efficacy to inform this debate.This study begins to fill this gap in our knowledge, and the results, if replicated, suggest that the use of LWOP should be either scaled back or eliminated. K E Y W O R D Sdeterrence, incapacitation, life without parole, sentencing policy, violent crime Over the last several decades, life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences have proliferated in the United States. In 1970, only seven states even authorized LWOP (Nellis, 2013), but by 2016, only Alaska did not have an explicit LWOP statute (Nellis, 2017). Even more recently, while the use of the formal death penalty has been in decline for the past two decades (Death Penalty Information Center, 2018), the size of the LWOP population has exploded at a rate that far surpasses the decline in death sentences so that many who were never at risk of an execution are now being sentenced to die in prison (Henry, 2012). Since 1992, the number of inmates serving LWOP has more than quadrupled (Nellis

Life lessons: Examining sources of racial and ethnic disparity in federal life without parole sentences*

“…As life and LWOP sentences have proliferated, questions have arisen regarding their fairness, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness (Cheatwood, 1988;Kleinstuber & Coldsmith, 2020). Life sentences are at odds with well-established findings that suggest offenders age out of crime (e.g., Sampson & Laub, 2003).…”

“…Although the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that "death is different," recent decisions have restricted the use of LWOP for juveniles, arguing that "life without parole sentences share some characteristics with death sentences that are shared by no other sentences" (Graham v. Florida, 2010), and that "imprisoning an offender until he dies alters the remainder of his life by a forfeiture that is irrevocable" (Miller v. Alabama, 2012). As debates over LWOP intensify, empirical research on inequities and unfairness in the life sentencing process will be critically important for informing future policy reforms (Kleinstuber & Coldsmith, 2020). In the end, we concur with Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor who recently opined that, "Trial judges making the determination whether a defendant should be condemned to die in prison have a grave responsibility" because "it means that whatever the future might hold in store for the mind and spirit of the convict, he will remain in prison for the rest of his days" (Glen Campbell v. Ohio, 2018).…”

“…Other work has highlighted their perverse impacts on shifting age and mortality rates in penal institutions (Porter et al, 2016), emphasizing that "the pains of imprisonment are significantly heightened" for "life sentences" (van Zyl Smit & Appleton, 2019, p. x). A small but growing body of scholarship has begun to investigate life sentences, detailing their historical evolution in crime policy (Seeds, 2018), and examining their impact on select outcomes like inmate adjustment (Leigey & Schartmueller, 2019), prison infractions (Sorensen & Reidy, 2019), and violent crime rates (Kleinstuber & Coldsmith, 2020). Little research, however, has examined inequalities in the judicial imposition of life sentences (Hamilton, 2016).…”

Paroling Authorities and the Challenge of Leverage in an Era of Chronic Mass Incarceration

“…15 Retribution, long-term incapacitation, and public safety concerns underlie the imposition of life sentences for serious and violent felonies. However, the act of confining individuals in prison for exceedingly long periods of time produces diminishing returns relative to the likelihood of their reoffending (Kleinstuber & Coldsmith, 2020). The propensity to commit crime, even violent crime, greatly recedes as individuals age (Mauer & Nellis, 2018).…”