It’s no secret that people across the country fear crime and that satisfaction with the criminal legal system is low. It’s also clear that our country's punitive approach to justice is not delivering the safety that people desire, and is, in fact, causing harm.

Since the 1980s and 1990s, harsh laws imposing excessively long prison sentences—laws that were often set hastily by state legislators looking to appear tough on crime—have been the norm in the United States. New York, for example, passed the Sentencing Reform Act of 1995, which arbitrarily increased, and, in some cases, even doubled, sentences for people convicted of prior criminal offenses. In Illinois, so-called "Truth in Sentencing” laws passed in 1998 essentially doubled the amount of time spent in prison for people convicted of certain crimes.

Yet, research published since then has shown both that long sentences fail to deter crime and that people typically age out of crime—making excessively long sentences unnecessary. Many people can safely be released from prison, but by and large, states have not updated their sentencing laws to reflect what we know today. Even now, in many states, judges are bound by laws that lean heavily on lengthy prison terms, with little ability to consider individualized circumstances. These laws offer few opportunities for many people—especially those with more than one conviction or who have been convicted of violent offenses—to shorten their sentences by demonstrating a commitment to change once they are sent to prison.

Some states have implemented more recent sentencing reforms—although they have not gone far enough. California’s 1994 “Three Strikes and You’re Out” law mandated both double-length sentences for people convicted of new felonies if they had a previous conviction for a serious or violent felony as well as life sentences for people with three “strikes.” Subsequent propositions have modified the law, but it still “contains the most severe sentence enhancements, applies to a particularly broad group of felonies, and has been used more extensively in sentencing criminal cases than in any other state,” according to a report by the California Policy Lab.

Our current approach to sentencing isn’t working

When it comes to addressing crime, most people understand that preventing crime works better than imposing severe punishments in its aftermath. A 2024 post-election survey from Vera Action found that voters preferred investments in resources that have been proven to build safe communities—including educational opportunities, good jobs, housing, and mental health services—over responding to crime with police and prisons after the fact. Yet, we continue to overspend on mass incarceration at the expense of these critical investments.

Decreasing this focus on punishment and retribution and instead focusing on the things that will actually create safety in our communities will require many things, including reevaluating harsh sentencing practices. In the 1990s, 24 states and the federal government enacted some form of three-strikes laws that force judges to set long sentences in certain circumstances. And all 50 states and the federal government have mandatory minimum sentencing laws, which are overly punitive and require that people serve a predetermined minimum prison term for certain offenses with no possibility of parole, regardless of their circumstances. Prosecutors have used these laws to coerce people into pleading guilty by presenting a “favorable” plea deal that’s difficult for even an innocent person to turn down.

In practice, these sentencing laws have caused more people to be incarcerated for longer periods of time, with few avenues for release. More than 200,000 people—one out of every six people in prison—are serving life sentences. More people being sent to prison and more people staying there for decades has led to a rapidly aging prison population that is often crowded into dangerous facilities and forced to endure brutal conditions. Meanwhile, a nationwide prison staffing shortage means both people behind bars and those who work in prisons are increasingly unsafe.

If the criminal legal system aims to hold people accountable and reduce their likelihood of committing future crimes, a lengthy prison sentence—or a prison sentence at all in many instances—is often the worst way to accomplish these goals. A lengthy sentence does not require that a person make amends to the people they have harmed—unlike community-based options like restorative justice, which has been shown to deliver accountability and shows promise in reducing future crime. Moreover, the experience of prison can be violent and damaging and its impact can far outlast an already long sentence, with people often leaving incarceration in poorer physical and mental health than when they entered. Survivors of crime have even said they prefer prevention, healing, and repair over harsh punishments, and judges have argued that the sentences that laws require them to impose are too severe.

What states can do: front-end and back-end sentencing reforms

States need to return to sentencing 101: delivering meaningful accountability by providing opportunities for people to show remorse and make amends, while focusing on real—not performative—safety. Safety comes when the criminal legal system focuses more on preventing and solving crime than on doling out crushing punishments. Safety also comes when sentencing creates incentives for people to participate in educational opportunities, job trainings, substance abuse treatment, and mental health support services.

In California and New Jersey, sentencing revision committees have made recommendations to legislators and governors for reforms that would decrease the prison population and promote justice. But ultimately, states need to introduce reforms that shorten sentence lengths to begin with. On the front end, state lawmakers can examine sentencing laws, eliminating mandatory minimums and giving judges flexibility to consider the specific circumstances of each person and each case. They can also create opportunities for people to earn time off their sentences for positive behavior, which could include volunteering, participating in education and other programming, and providing mentorship to others in prison.

Lawmakers can also implement back-end reforms by reevaluating if the sentences people are already serving are appropriate and considering whether they can safely be released after they have served a significant portion of their sentences. Second-look laws, for example, allow judges to review and potentially reduce sentences after a person has already served a lengthy amount of time. Washington, DC’s Second Look Amendment Act, which took effect in 2021, gives people who were convicted of serious offenses before the age of 25 and who have served at least 15 years in prison the opportunity to apply for resentencing. Active campaigns to pass Second Look laws are underway in Michigan, Maryland, New York, and Washington State (where a bill passed the house in 2023), among others.

Today, we have a much more expansive understanding of accountability and safety than in the 1990s, and the “tough” sentencing strategy that lawmakers adopted 30 years ago isn’t promoting either. It’s time to implement what we now know works.