The possibility of parole: A powerful incentive that makes us all safer
Inmates are discussing self-sabotage with Anastasia Romero from Denver Health's jail-to-community program at Van Cise-Simonet Detention Center in Denver, Colorado on Aug. 3, 2023. Hyoung Chang/The Denver Post
Connecting state and local government leaders
COMMENTARY | Researchers have found that offenders incarcerated under truth-in-sentencing laws racked up more disciplinary infractions and engaged in fewer rehabilitation programs. And after release, they were much more likely to reoffend.
Criminal justice reformers and tough-on-crime advocates frequently argue about whether to make prison sentences longer or shorter. Does increasing incarceration make communities safer, or does it make us all less safe? Regardless of discussions on optimal sentence lengths, it’s time to talk about a separate but related issue: How to decide when to release someone from prison. This often-overlooked policy detail has big consequences for people and communities.
For decades, incarcerated people had the possibility of parole after serving some portion of their sentence. Parole boards would consider various factors, including whether an incarcerated person had demonstrated good behavior and appeared rehabilitated. If the parole board decided to release that person, they’d serve the rest of their sentence in the community, on parole. If the parole board thought the offender was still an active public safety threat, they’d keep them locked up.
People across the political spectrum disliked this arrangement. Some worried about putting this much power in the hands of a shadowy parole board, which could behave in discriminatory ways without being held accountable. Others thought the possibility of parole itself offered too much leniency and that reducing the punishment seemed soft on crime.
As a result, states began enacting “truth in sentencing,” laws in the early 1990s, which eliminated the possibility of parole for most incarcerated people. These laws remain on the books, with some TIS states debating whether to expand them. Other states are now considering adopting the idea.
Evidence has shown this is a move in the wrong direction.
Consider a recent study by economist David Macdonald. He examined the effect of Arizona’s TIS law, passed in 1994, to better understand how the change in incentives affected people’s behavior. The possibility of parole is designed as an incentive to demonstrate rehabilitation. This means incarcerated individuals have an incentive to practice good behavior—avoiding fights and other disciplinary infractions—and to engage in prison programming like education, drug treatment and job training. These behaviors are the visible indicators of lower risk that parole boards look at when deciding if someone is still a public safety threat. TIS policies take these incentives away: No matter what an inmate does or how they spend their time in prison, they’ll get out on the same date.
Macdonald compared people sentenced just before and after TIS was implemented. Overall characteristics of offenders sentenced just after TIS were nearly identical to those of people sentenced before TIS, but people sentenced after TIS had to abide by the new rules that offered no possibility of parole. In his analysis, Macdonald found that judges adjusted their sentences downward when they knew offenders couldn’t get out early, so there was no net change in time served. This is an important finding in itself.
How did the offenders use that time? Macdonald found that people sentenced under TIS racked up more disciplinary infractions—especially for violent behavior—and engaged in fewer programs. And those changes in behavior had long-term consequences: After release, people sentenced under TIS were much more likely to reoffend. TIS increased the likelihood of returning to prison within three years by 4.8 percentage points—a 23% increase relative to those sentenced just before TIS. This suggests that TIS laws actually make communities less safe.
These stark findings are consistent with previous research on the state of Georgia by another economist, Ilyana Kuziemko, who also found TIS laws increased disciplinary infractions and reduced completion of prison programs. Because of this, TIS increased reoffending after release.
We’ve learned a lot since the 1990s. One of the important lessons is that incentives matter. The possibility of parole—and the powerful incentive it provides—dramatically improves outcomes later, both for people and communities. As states consider how to address crime today, they should heed this important lesson. The smart-on-crime strategy is to abandon truth-in-sentencing laws and bring back parole.
Jennifer Doleac is the executive vice president of criminal justice at Arnold Ventures. She is a leading expert on the economics of crime and criminal justice policy and a vocal proponent of using rigorous research to inform policy.
NEXT STORY: Data for dementia: State’s brain health registry helps prep for an aging population