Delaying a Second Chance: The Declining Prospects for Parole on Life Sentences, The Sentencing Project, 2017

• Jan. 31, 2017 • Locations: United States of America • Topics: Criminal justice system reform, Sentencing, De Facto Life Sentence

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail

Document text

This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE:
THE DECLINING PROSPECTS FOR
PAROLE ON LIFE SENTENCES
THIRTY-TWO JURISDICTION PROFILES

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 Nazgol Ghandnoosh, Ph.D., Research
Analyst at The Sentencing Project. Ashley Nellis, Ph.D., Joshua Rovner,
and Morgan McLeod made substantial contributions. Leigh Courtney,
Corey Guilmette, Elizabeth McCurdy, Zack Eckles, and Sami Ghubril,
former interns, provided research assistance.
We are grateful to the following individuals for their input on the state
profiles: Katherine Beckett, Randall C. Berg, Jr., Tessa Bialek, Michele
Deitch, Philip Genty, Barbara R. Levine, Walter Lomax, Thomas Master,
Scott Paltrowitz, Alan Rosenthal, Heidi L. Rummel, Sarah F. Russell,
Bobbin Singh, and Jean Trounstine. We also thank the staff of the state
and federal agencies that provided data for this analysis.
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
Mott Philanthropy
Open Society Foundations
Petschek 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 © 2017 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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
To read the primary report which this document supplements, see Delaying a Second Chance: The Declining
Prospects for Parole on Life Sentences.

1. Arizona
2. Arkansas
3. California
4. Colorado
5. Connecticut
6. Florida
7. Georgia
8. Hawaii
9. Illinois
10. Iowa
11. Maine
12. Maryland
13. Massachusetts
14. Michigan
15. Minnesota
16. Missouri
17. Montana
18. Nebraska
19. New Jersey
20. New York
21. North Dakota
22. Ohio
23. Oregon
24. Rhode Island
25. South Carolina
26. Texas
27. Utah
28. Washington
29. West Virginia
30. Wisconsin
31. Wyoming
32. Federal
The Sentencing Project

1
3
5
10
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
26
28
31
33
35
38
40
42
44
48
49
51
53
54
57
59
62
65
67
70
72

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Arizona
KEY FINDINGS
•

Although Arizona’s 1993 truth-in-sentencing law eliminated discretionary parole for offenses committed after 1994, the state has continued to impose parole-eligible life sentences under a habitual offender law and for certain offenses. Its parole-eligible lifer population has doubled between 1994 and
2012.

•

Individuals sentenced to life for first-degree murder or for certain aggravated second-degree murder
convictions between 1985 and 1994 must serve between 25 and 35 years before being considered
for parole. Lifers sentenced after 1994 under the habitual offender law become parole-eligible after
serving 25 years, and those convicted of dangerous crimes against children become eligible after 35
years.

•

Average time served for the 18 lifers paroled in 2013 with murder convictions was 28.3 years.

•

Arizona conducted 179 lifer parole hearings in 2013 and paroled 31 individuals—a grant rate of 17%.
Eight of the paroled individuals began consecutive sentences. Seventeen waived their parole hearing
that year.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
There were 1,053 individuals with parole-eligible life
sentences in Arizona prisons in 2012, constituting
2.6% of the state’s prison population.1 This was nearly
double the number of parole-eligible lifers in Arizona
prisons in 1994.2

In 2014, the legislature passed House Bill 2593 in response to the Miller and Graham Supreme Court decisions, which reestablished the possibility of parole for
individuals sentenced to life without parole for crimes
committed under age 18.7

Although Arizona’s 1993 truth-in-sentencing law eliminated discretionary parole for offenses committed
after 1994,3 the state has continued to impose parole-eligible life sentences under a habitual offender
law and for certain offenses. Individuals sentenced to
life for first-degree murder or for certain aggravated
second-degree murder offenses between 1985 and
1994 must serve 25 years before being considered for
parole, or 35 years if the victim was less than 15 years
old.4 Since 1994, the state has sentenced a number
of people to life with the possibility of parole after
serving 25 years under a habitual offender law, and to
life with the possibility of parole after serving 35 years
for dangerous crimes against children.5 The legislature
has not yet defined the release process for these individuals, who will become eligible for parole review
starting in 2019.6

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with Murder
Convictions in Arizona, 2013

Number released: First-degree murder (12), Second-degree murder (1),
Murder unspecified (5)

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES

The average time served for the 12 lifers released in
2013 with first-degree murder convictions was 26.6
years. That year, an individual released with a second-degree murder conviction had served 24.8 years.
The five who were released with unspecified murder
convictions had served an average of 33.2 years.
Average time served for all of these 18 individuals was
28.3 years.

In 2013, parole was granted in 31 lifer parole hearings
and it was denied in 148 hearings, resulting in a grant
rate of 17%. Eight of the paroled individuals began
consecutive sentences. Seventeen people waived their
parole hearing that year (and were not included in the
grant rate calculation).

Outcomes of Arizona’s Scheduled Lifer Parole Hearings, 2013

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 Nellis, 2013
3 Arizona State Senate, Truth in Sentencing, S. (Ariz. 2010). Retrieved
from http://www.azleg.gov/briefs/senate/truth%20in%20sentencing.
pdf; Omnibus Criminal Code Revisions, S. 1049, 41st Leg., 1st Reg.
Sess. (Ariz. 1993). Retrieved from http://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/cdm/
ref/collection/azsession/id/69
4 Omnibus Criminal Code Revisions, S.V-1586, 37th Leg., 1st Reg. Sess.
(Ariz. 1985). Retrieved from http://azmemory.azlibrary.gov/cdm/singleitem/collection/azsession/id/0/rec/65; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-705,
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-706

5 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604; Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 13-604.01
6 Correspondence with the Arizona Department of Corrections.
7 The Phillips Black Project. (2015, July). Juvenile life without parole after
Miller v. Alabama. Retrieved from https://static1.squarespace.com/
static/55bd511ce4b0830374d25948/t/55f9d0abe4b0ab 5c061abe90/1442435243965/Juvenile+Life+Without+Parole+After+Miller++.pdf.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Arkansas
KEY FINDINGS
•

To qualify for parole, individuals with parole-eligible life-sentences must first have their sentences
commuted by the governor to a term of years. Those sentenced to life without parole remain parole-ineligible even after a commutation.

•

The state has had very few lifer parole hearings, averaging two per year between 1980 and 2014.
Across this period, the parole board conducted 68 lifer parole hearings and granted parole to 19 people.
During the 2000s, the only parole grants for those with murder convictions were under Act 290 Hearings. These hearings occur when an individual is either diagnosed with a terminal illness that will
result in death within the year or is incapacitated to the degree that care is not available within the
department of corrections.

•

Average time served among released lifers with first-degree or capital murder convictions has increased
markedly over time. In the 1980s, average time served for this group was 15.8 years; in the 1990s, it
was 23.9 years; and in the 2000s it was 29.7 years.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with First-Degree
Murder Convictions in Arkansas, 1980-2014

The 872 individuals serving parole-eligible life sentences in Arkansas constituted 6.0% of the state’s prison
population in 2012.1 In addition, a significant number
of people were serving parole-ineligible life sentences.2
Life-sentenced individuals in Arkansas can become
parole-eligible only if the governor first commutes their
sentence to a term of years by executive clemency,
and they have served the statutory minimum sentence.3
Individuals sentenced to life without parole cannot be
released on parole, even if the governor commutes
their sentence to a term of years.
The parole board can rescind its parole grants in cases
where incarcerated individuals fail to complete a
program on which their parole grant was conditioned.4
During the 2000s, the only parole grants for those with
murder convictions were under Act 290 Hearings.
These hearings occur when a physician diagnoses an
individual with a terminal illness that will result in death
within the year, or when the individual is incapacitated
to the degree that care is not available within the department of corrections.5

Note: This analysis includes an individual paroled in 2008 with a capital
murder conviction who had served 27.2 years

Number of Lifers with First-Degree Murder Convictions Paroled from Arkansas Prisons, 1980-2014
1980s

1990s
5

2000s
2

2010-2014
4

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates in Arkansas, 1980-2014
7

75%

100%

67%

100%

50%

33%
0%

33%

50%
0%

17%
0%

1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014

Granted

Grant rate

100%

67%

Not granted

100%

Number of hearings

Note: Grant rate does not include those for whom parole was rescinded

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES

Since 1980, 10 people convicted of first-degree murder,
one convicted of second-degree murder, and one convicted of capital murder have been paroled. Five of
these individuals were paroled in the 1980s, two in the
1990s, and five in the 2000s. All who were paroled in
the 2000s were released under Act 290 Hearings. No
lifers were paroled between 2010 and 2014.

The state has had very few lifer parole hearings, averaging two per year between 1980 and 2014. Given the
small number of hearings, the parole grant rate has
varied significantly across years. Of the 68 total hearings conducted during this period, 21 resulted in a
parole grant, two of which were rescinded.

Average time served for released lifers with first-degree
or capital murder convictions has increased markedly
over time. In the 1980s, average time served for this
group was 15.8 years; in the 1990s, it was 23.9 years;
and in the 2000s it was 29.7 years.
The individual with a second-degree murder conviction
who was released in 2005 had served 7.6 years.
1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 In 2016, Arkansas had 57 individuals sentenced to mandatory life
without parole as juveniles who would be resentenced. See: Kauffman,
J. (2016, January 25). Supreme Court juvenile life sentences decision
& Arkansas legislative battles. Arkansas Public Media. Retrieved from

http://ualrpublicradio.org/post/supreme-court-juvenile-life-sentences-decision-arkansas-legislative-battles#stream/0
3 Ark. Code Ann. § 16-93-613
4 Correspondence with Arkansas Parole Board.
5 Board of Parole, Arkansas Board of Parole Policy Manual, (Ark. 2010).
Retrieved from http://www.sos.arkansas.gov/rulesRegs/Arkansas%20
Register/2010/Oct10Reg/158.00.10-001.pdf

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

California
KEY FINDINGS
•

California1 leads the nation in the size of its parole-eligible lifer population, with over 34,000 individuals in 2013. The state’s “three strikes and you’re out” law increased the imposition of these sentences while policies such as increased minimum sentences before parole eligibility, gubernatorial
review of the parole board’s decisions, and increased wait times between hearings have delayed
parole.

•

Time served for released lifers with murder convictions remained relatively stable between 1984 and
2001, averaging 12.3 years across this period. Average time served then climbed dramatically, reaching 24.3 years for those paroled in 2013. State records reveal that more lifers with murder convictions
died in prison than were paroled between 2000 and 2011.

•

The parole board’s grant rate for lifers increased from 3% to 16% between 2000 and 2009, and increased further to 29% by 2013. While earlier governors during this period reversed or requested
reconsideration of between 73% and 98% of parole board grants, Governor Jerry Brown did so for
just 19% of the board’s decisions by 2013. While the number of hearings conducted climbed during
the earlier part of this period, it has declined in recent years.

•

The implementation of alternative parole hearings for people convicted under age 18 (later extended
to those convicted under age 23) has marginally improved this group’s parole prospects.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
California has by far the largest parole-eligible lifer
population in the United States: 34,070 individuals in
2013.2 While parole-eligible lifers accounted for 7% of
the total US prison population in 2012, they represented one-quarter of California’s prison population in that
year.3 (In 2010, before the state began its “Realignment”
policy to reduce the number of incarcerated individuals with low-level convictions, parole-eligible lifers
represented 20% of the prison population.)4 Half of
these individuals were convicted of homicide, 27%
were convicted of aggravated assault, robbery, or kidnapping, 12% of sexual assault, and 11% had property
or drug convictions.5 In addition, a significant number
of people in California were serving parole-ineligible
life sentences or were on death row.6
California leads the country in the size of its lifer population because of policies and practices that have
both increased the imposition of this sentence and

limited parole. In 1994, California voters approved the
“three strikes and you’re out” law, whereby people
whose third felony conviction (of any type, until 2012’s
Proposition 36)7 was preceded by two serious or violent
felonies were mandated to serve a 25-years-to-life
sentence. None of the “three strikers”—numbering
7,975 individuals in 2013—have so far come up for
parole review.8
Long before the passage of the three-strikes law, California had begun to restrict parole for lifers. A series
of roadblocks erected beginning in 1978 increased the
minimum amount of time that these individuals have
to serve before becoming eligible for parole (their
“minimum eligible parole date,” or MEPD).9 Those convicted of life crimes prior to 1978 had a MEPD of seven
years; afterwards, the MEPD for individuals convicted
of first-degree murder became 25 years and the MEPD
for those convicted of second-degree murder became

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
15 years.10 The MEPD could be reduced by one-third
for good behavior for many individuals, but a number
of provisions have restricted this relief.11

Following In re Lawrence and In re Shaputis in 2008,
parole denials cannot be based on the commitment
offense alone, but rather on inadequate “insight” into
the crime. Since the implementation of Senate Bill 260
(“SB 260”) in 2014, lifers convicted of crimes under
the age of 18 are given “Youth Offender Parole Hearings” which give greater weight to the impact of their
youth at the time of the crime and to their potential
for change.15 In 2015, Senate Bill 261 extended this
reform to those convicted under age 23.

The passage of Proposition 89 in 1988 allowed governors to overturn the parole board’s parole grants for
lifers convicted of murder and to demand additional
review for others, a secondary review process used by
only four other states.12 More recently, Marsy’s Law of
2008 (Proposition 9) has increased possible wait times
between parole hearings from 1–5 years to 3–15
years.13 In 2016, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed a district court ruling finding that Propositions
9 and 89 violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S.
Constitution , which prohibits retroactively increasing
prison sentences.14

Throughout this period, some incarcerated individuals
have successfully challenged parole denials by filing
writs of habeas corpus. In 2011, the United States
Supreme Court limited the federal courts’ ability to
provide this relief.16

Average Time Served for Paroled Lifers with Murder Convictions in California, 1984-2013

Source: National Corrections Reporting Program

2012

2013

2010

2009

2008

487

2007

2006

49 36 49 86 177 261 388

2005

2004

22 70

2011

69 64 53 71 49 53 42 33 17 14 14 13 12 27 21 15 12 14 10

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

1985

1984

Number of Paroled Lifers with Murder Convictions in California, 1984-2013

Source: National Corrections Reporting Program

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

NUMBER RELEASED AND TIME
SERVED

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES

Between 1984 and 2013, the number of lifers with
murder convictions who were paroled has both declined
and increased.17 Between 1984 and 1989, an average
of 60 such individuals were released each year. This
figure fell to 21 between 1990 and 1999. This annual
average number of releases increased to 53 in the
2000s and to 379 between 2010 and 2013.

Due to the limited availability of data, this analysis of
lifer parole hearings and grant rates begins in the year
2000. Between 2000 and 2013, the parole board has
increased its grant rate and governors—particularly
Governor Brown—have reversed or requested reconsideration of fewer of these decisions. But while the
number of hearings conducted climbed during the
earlier part of this period, it has declined in recent
years. The remainder of this section examines these
trends in greater detail.

Average time served for released lifers with murder
convictions remained relatively stable in the late 1980s
and in the 1990s, then began a dramatic ascent beginning in the early 2000s 18 Specifically, time served
for these paroled individuals averaged 12.3 years
between 1984 and 2001, then gradually reached double
this level by 2013, at 24.3 years.
Given that these estimates are based on the population
that is released from prison, they understate the increased punitiveness of the state by omitting the large
number of people who died in prison before being
paroled. In an interview with Nancy Mullane, a press
spokesman for the corrections department stated that
“most lifers will die in prison before they get out on
parole,” and state records reveal that more lifers with
murder convictions died in prison than were paroled
between 2000 and 2011.19

The parole board’s grant rate increased from 3% to
16% between 2000 and 2009, and increased further to
29% by 2013. California governors have varied in their
use of the power to challenge the parole board’s grant
decisions. Governor Pete Wilson (1991-1999) reversed
or requested en banc reviews (in which the full board
reconsiders a panel decision) for 27% of cases in which
the parole board had granted parole;20 Governor Gray
Davis (1999-2003) did so for 98% of cases; Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger’s (2003-2011) rate was 73%,
and; Governor Jerry Brown’s (2011-present) rate has
been the lowest, at 19% by 2013.21
Although in recent years the parole board has increased
its grant rate and the current governor has left the

Number of Lifer Parole Hearings Conducted and Grant Rates in California, 2000-2013
3500

Not granted

3000

Granted by parole
board
Granted following
gubernational review

2500
2000

21%

500

1000

24%

1500
25%

Number of hearings

4000

Net grant rate

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Sources: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Suitability Hearing Summary, CY 1978 through CY 2012 and Lifer Prisoner Parole
Consideration Hearing and Decision Information For Calendar Years 2009-2013; Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. (via Paul Elias of the
Associated Press); Thomas Master provided the count of conducted hearings for years 2000-2008.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
California Governor Rates of Parole Grant
Reversals and En Banc Reviews, 1991-2013
Outcomes of parole board grants

100%

80%

74%

% Reveresed
% En Banc

61%

60%
40%
24%
20%
0

12%

16%

12%

15%
3%

Brown
Wilson
Davis
Schwarzenegger
(1991-1998) (1999-2003)
(2004-2010) (2011 through 2013)

Note: Periods listed above are years of data that do not fully overlap with
years in office
Source: Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. (via Paul Elias of the
Associated Press)

majority of these decisions intact, the number of conducted hearings has been falling. The annual number
of conducted hearings grew from 1,680 in 2000 to
3,640 in 2006, and then gradually fell to 2,069 in 2013.22
The recent decline stems in part from: 1) a decline in
the number of scheduled hearings; and 2) a decline in
the proportion of scheduled hearings that are conducted. Marsy’s Law of 2008, a victim’s bill of rights statute
passed at referendum, increased wait times between
parole hearings and thus may be contributing to both
of these trends:
•

The number of scheduled hearings declined from
7,121 in 2009 to 4,171 in 2013. All else equal, an
increase in the wait time between hearings reduces
the number of scheduled hearings. One analysis
found that the average wait until subsequent hearings more than doubled from 2.0 years in 2007 to
4.6 years in 2009.23

•

Although most scheduled lifer parole hearings were
conducted during the 1980s and 1990s, since 2000,
a growing proportion of lifers have opted out of
their hearings potentially to avoid a long wait for
a subsequent hearing if they are denied parole.24
In 2000, 78% of 2,164 scheduled hearings were
conducted.25 In 2013, the board conducted just
50% of its 4,171 scheduled hearings.26 Twenty
percent of scheduled hearings were postponed by
either the parole board or the life-sentenced individual. In addition, lifers voluntarily waived 17% of
hearings and stipulated their unsuitability for parole
in 9% of scheduled hearings. Robert Weisberg and
colleagues note that a key factor contributing to
the growing decline in the proportion of scheduled
hearings that are conducted “appears to be a disincentive built into the system: If an inmate anticipates a high probability of denial of parole at a
hearing, s/he often chooses to cancel the hearing
as a formal denial by the Board could greatly delay
his or her entitlement to a subsequent hearing.”27
Marsy’s Law is one such disincentive.

Outcomes of Scheduled Parole Hearings in
California, 2013

Total number of hearings: 4,171

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

JUVENILE LIFERS
Beth Caldwell’s study of the 2014 reform diverting
lifers convicted of crimes under age 18 to Youth Offender Parole Hearings found that at first the new
policy “created at least marginally more meaningful
opportunities for release.”28 The 109 individuals who
had such hearings in the first six months of the year
had served an average of 24.7 years in prison. Although
the majority of these hearings resulted in denials, the
43% grant rate was higher than for hearings of those
convicted as adults. The governor overturned 24% of
these grants.

Those convicted under age 18 continued to have a
higher parole grant rate than those convicted as adults
for the first eleven months of 2014, but this trend reversed the following year. In the first four months of
2015, the parole board granted parole to youth offenders at a lower rate than it did to their adult-convicted
counterparts. This may be partly attributable to the
changing characteristics of youth offenders who had
parole hearings during these periods.29

1 All California data presented here were either publicly available or retrieved from researchers, attorneys, or reporters, as specified. We did
not undergo the requisite institutional review board process to directly receive data from the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.
2 New York ranks second, with just under 10,000 people serving parole-eligible life sentences. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Offender Information Services Branch. (2013, September).
Prison census data as of June 30, 2013 (Reference No. CENSUS1). Retrieved from http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/reports_research/offender_information_services_branch/Annual/Census/CENSUSd1306.pdf; Nellis,
A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
3 Nellis, 2013. In 2010, before Realignment reduced the number of people
imprisoned with lower-level convictions, these lifers represented 20%
of the state’s total prison population. See: California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation Offender Information Services Branch.
(2011, February). Prison census data as of December 31, 2010 (Reference
No. CENSUS1). Retrieved from http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/reports_research/offender_information_services_branch/Annual/Census/
CENSUSd1012.pdf
4 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Offender Information Services Branch. (2011, February). Prison census data as of
December 31, 2010 (Reference No. CENSUS1). Retrieved from http://
www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Offender_Information_Services_
Branch/Annual/Census/CENSUSd1012.pdf.
5 Nellis, 2013.
6 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Offender Information Services Branch, 2013
7 Progress report: Three strikes reform (Proposition 36). (2013, September).
Retrieved from Stanford Law School Three Strikes Project & NAACP
Legal Defense and Education Fund website: http://www.naacpldf.org/
files/publications/ThreeStrikesReport_v6.pdf
8 Weisberg, R., Mukamal, D. A., & Segall, J. D. (2011, September). Life in
limbo: An examination of parole release for prisoners serving life sentences with the possibility of parole in California. Retrieved from Stanford
Criminal Justice Center website: http://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/
uploads/sites/default/files/child-page/164096/doc/slspublic/SCJC_
report_Parole_Release_for_Lifers.pdf
9 Prison Law Office. (2016, January). Life parole suitability information
letter. Retrieved from http://prisonlaw.com/wp-content/
uploads/2016/01/LiferCNAJan2016-withHB.pdf
10 Mock, C. R. (2008). Parole suitability determinations in California:
Ambiguous, arbitrary and illusory. Review of Law and Social Justice,
17(3), 889-918. Retrieved from http://weblaw.usc.edu/why/students/
orgs/rlsj/assets/docs/issue_17/03_Mock_macro.pdf
11 Mock, 2008; Prison Law Office. (2016, January). Life parole suitability
information letter. Retrieved from http://prisonlaw.com/wp-content/
uploads/2016/01/LiferCNAJan2016-withHB.pdf
12 The other states are: Louisiana, Maryland, Oklahoma, and Washington.
See Weisberg, Mukamal, & Segall, 2011; Washington State Office of
the Attorney General. (2013, November 7). Washington Supreme Court
issues 9-0 ruling in parole review case [Press release]. Retrieved from
http://www.atg.wa.gov/news/news-releases/washington-supremecourt-issues-9-0-ruling-parole-review-case (see Wash. Rev. Code Ann.
§ 9.95.160)

13 California Proposition 9, Marsy’s Law (2008). (n.d.). In Ballotpedia.
Retrieved September 15, 2016, from https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_9,_Marsy%27s_Law_(2008)
14 Walsh, D. (2016, February 22). Appeals court reverses judge’s decision
invalidating state parole laws. The Sacramento Bee, Crime. Retrieved
from http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/crime/article61886167.html
15 UnCommon Law. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions about Senate Bill 260
[Fact sheet]. Retrieved September 15, 2016, from UnCommon Law
website:
h t t p : / / u n c o m m o n l a w. o r g / w p - c o n t e n t / u p loads/2013/10/13.10.15-Frequently-Asked-Questions-about-SB-260.
pdf
16 Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. (Jan. 24, 2011).
17 Based on data from the National Corrections Reporting Program
18 Based on data from the National Corrections Reporting Program. See
also Weisberg, Mukamal, & Segall, 2011
19 Mullane, N. (2012). Life after murder: Five men in search of redemption.
New York, NY: Public Affairs, p. 147.
20 During these years, the board scheduled an annual average of 1,985
hearings in contrast to the annual average of 4,813 hearings scheduled
during subsequent administrations. During Wilson’s administration,
board granted parole in 1% of scheduled parole hearings (data were not
available to determine the grant rate for hearings that were conducted).
21 Source: Office of Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. (via Paul Elias of the
Associated Press). The office did not have any Proposition 89 records
from Governor George Deukmejian (1983-1991).
22 Lifer Prisoner Parole Consideration Hearing and Decision Information
For Calendar Years 2009-2013; Thomas Master provided the count of
conducted hearings for years 2000-2008.
23 Weisberg, Mukamal, & Segall, 2011
24 Weisberg, Mukamal, & Segall, 2011
25 Thomas Master; California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Board of Parole Hearings. (2013, April). Suitability hearing summary:
CY 1978 through CY 2012. Retrieved from http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/BOPH/
docs/BPH_Hearing_Results_CY_1978_to_2012.pdf. We consider conducted hearings to be those that resulted in denials, grants, split decisions, or continuances. For definitions of these terms, see: http://www.
cdcr.ca.gov/BOPH/pshResults.html.
26 See: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Board of
Parole Hearings. (2014, August). Lifer scheduling and tracking system:
Lifer prisoner parole consideration hearing and decision information for
the calendar year 2013. Retrieved from http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/BOPH/
docs/LSTS_Workload_CY2013.pdf.
27 Weisberg, Mukamal, & Segall, 2011, p.11
28 Caldwell, B. (2016). Creating meaningful opportunities for release:
Graham, Miller, and California’s youth offender parole hearings. N.Y.U
Review of Law & Social Change, 40, 245-304, p. 272
29 Caldwell, 2016, p. 273

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Colorado
KEY FINDINGS
•

For life-sentenced individuals convicted of certain Class One felonies and those convicted of certain
habitual offender enhancements, Colorado legislators increased minimum sentences before parole
eligibility from 10 years for those convicted before 1977 to 20 years for those convicted between 1977
and 1985. Lifers whose convictions occurred between 1985 and 1991 must serve 40 years before
becoming eligible for parole and those convicted after this period receive parole-ineligible life sentences.

•

The length of time served for paroled lifers with first-degree murder convictions has increased from
an average of 17.6 years for the three paroled between 1991 and 1999 to 28.6 years for the 27 paroled
between 2000 and 2013.

•

A total of four lifers with first-degree murder convictions were paroled between 1991 and 2005. For
11 years in this 15-year period, no such lifers were paroled. Between 2006 and 2013, an average of
three such lifers were paroled annually.

•

The number of lifer parole hearings has increased gradually from 36 in 1991 to 59 in 2013. The parole
grant rate increased from 3% between 1991 and 2007 to 13% between 2008 and 2013.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
Colorado prisons had 2,105 individuals with parole-eligible life sentences in 2012, constituting 9.8% of the
state prison population.1 In 2012, 81% of Colorado’s
parole-eligible lifer population had sex offense convictions while 13% had murder convictions.2
Among life-sentenced individuals convicted of the
Class One felonies of first-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping, and those convicted of certain habitual offender enhancements, the period of years that
must be served before parole eligibility increased starting in 1977. For such crimes committed before 1977,
the minimum sentence before parole eligibility was 10
years. For such crimes committed between 1977 and
1985, parole eligibility began after 20 years. For such
crimes committed between 1985 and 1991, parole
eligibility begins after 40 years. Class One felonies
committed on or after September 20, 1991 receive
parole-ineligible life sentences.3

Colorado’s parole board consists of seven full-time
members who are appointed by the governor and
confirmed by the senate. Terms are three years and
members can serve consecutive terms.4 Certain requirements are necessary to serve on the board, as
outlined in statute: “The board shall be composed of
representatives from multidisciplinary areas of expertise. Two members shall have experience in law enforcement and one member shall have experience in
offender supervision, including parole, probation, or
community corrections. Four members shall have
experience in other relevant fields.”5 Colorado has a
statutory presumption in favor of granting parole to
certain individuals including those with certain drug
convictions and Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees.6

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
Time Served for Paroled Lifers with First-Degree Murder Convictions in Colorado, 1991-2013
35
30

Years

25
20
15
10
5

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2011

2006

2012

2010

2005

2009

2004

2008

2003

2007

2002

2006

2001

2005

2004

2003

2002

2000

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

Number of Paroled Lifers with First-Degree Murder Convictions in Colorado, 1991-2013

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES

A total of four lifers with first-degree murder convictions
were paroled between 1991 and 2005. For 11 years in
this 15-year period, no such lifers were paroled. Between
2006 and 2013, an average of three such lifers were
paroled annually.

Between 1991 and 1999, Colorado conducted an
average of 29 parole hearings annually for the life-sentenced population. Between 2000 and 2008, this
number increased to 50 hearings per year, on average.
Between 2009 and 2013, this average increased further
to 67 hearings per year.

Lifers with first-degree murder convictions paroled
between 1991 and 2013 served increasingly longer
sentences. The three such individuals paroled between
1991 and 1999 had served an average of 17.6 years.
Average time served increased to 28.6 years for the
27 who were paroled between 2000 and 2013. Average
time served for the three such individuals who were
paroled in 2013 was the highest yet, at 31.6 years.

Between 1991 and 2007, 3% of conducted hearings
resulted in parole grants. The grant rate then increased
to 13% between 2008 and 2013.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates in Colorado, 1991-2013

11%

18%

Number of hearings

40
30
Denied parole

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 Nellis, 2013. Another 3% were convicted of aggravated assault, robbery,
or kidnapping and 2% were convicted of property crimes.
3 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-22.5-104. See also Colorado Department of Corrections (2004). Offenders serving life sentences. Denver: Colorado Department of Corrections.
4 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-2-201

17%
8%

Grant rate
Granted parole

2013

2012

12%
2011

12%
2010

12%
2009

14%

4%
2007

2008

5%
2006

2005 2%

4%
2004

2003 2%

2002 0%

2001 2%

2000 0%

1999 0%

8%
1998

1997 0%

7%
1993

1996 0%

11%
1992

1995 0%

6%
1991

1994 0%

5 Colo. Rev. Stat. § 17-2-201
6 O’Keefe, M. & Barr, B. (2013). Presumptive parole: FY 2013 report.
Colorado State Board of Parole. Retrieved from: https://www.colorado.
gov/pacific/sites/default/files/Presumptive%20Parole%20Report%20
FY%2013.pdf.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Connecticut
KEY FINDINGS
•

In 1981, Connecticut significantly restricted the imposition of parole-eligible life sentences. For lifers
convicted of murder prior to this date, time served has increased from 13.6 years for the three who
were paroled in 1995 and 1996 to 30.4 years for the 26 who were paroled between 1999 and 2013.
The shrinking pool of parole-eligible lifers may be partly driving the growth in time served over this
period.

•

With very few lifer parole hearings each year—on average, three per year from 1994 to 2013—the
annual grant rate has often varied between 0% and 100%. Of the 51 lifer parole hearings conducted
during this period, 29 resulted in a parole grant. Between 2010 and 2013, the number of hearings
increased slightly to an average of eight per year.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
Connecticut prisons held 289 individuals with parole-eligible life sentences in 2012, constituting 2.3% of the
state’s prison population.1

until reintroducing parole for certain convictions in
1990. 2 The state eliminated parole for individuals
convicted of murder, capital felony, felony murder, arson
murder, or aggravated sexual assault in the first degree.3
Individuals convicted of these crimes prior to July 1,

Effective July 1, 1981, Connecticut shifted from an
indeterminate to a determinate sentencing structure,

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with Murder Convictions in Connecticut, 1994-2013
40

38.9

33.9

33.4

28.0 28.3
25.3
22.3

27.7

24.2

14.0

13.3

1996

1995

Years

32.8

31.6 32.1

30.6

10
5

2009

2010

2013

2008

2012

2007

2011

2009

2006

2010

2008

2005

2007

2004

2005

2003

2002

2001

2006

2004

2000

1999

1998

1997

1994

Number of Lifers with Murder Convictions Paroled in Connecticut, 1994-2013
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
0

2011 2012 2013
6

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
1981, remain eligible for parole—and these are the
people for whom data were provided. This analysis
does not include life-sentenced individuals with criminal attempt or conspiracy to murder convictions since
1981, who remain parole-eligible.4
In 2015, Connecticut abolished juvenile life without
parole sentences.5 S.B. 796 (2015) created new
youth-specific criteria for parole eligibility.
Time served for the 26 lifers with murder convictions
paroled between 1999 and 2013 averaged 30.4 years—
with annual averages ranging from 22.3 to 38.9 years.
In contrast, the three who were paroled in 1995 and
1996 had served an average of 13.6 years.

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES
Connecticut has conducted few lifer parole hearings:
on average, three per year from 1994 to 2013. As a
result, the annual grant rate often varies between 0%
and 100%. Of the 51 lifer parole hearings conducted
during this period, 29 resulted in a parole grant. Between
2010 and 2013, the number of hearings has increased
slightly to an average of eight per year. Of the 23 lifer
parole hearings conducted during this period, 10 have
resulted in a parole grant.

Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates in Connecticut, 1994-2013
8

75%

Denied parole

5
4

29%

43%

100%

13%

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

Granted parole

100%

100%
0%

1997

1996

1994

100%

67%

100%

Grant rate

1995

Number of hearings

Note: Analysis is limited to those who received parole-eligible life sentences prior to 1981.

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.4 Correspondence with the Planning and Research Division of the Connecticut Board of Pardons & Parole.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sen5 See: An Act Concerning Lengthy Sentences for Crimes Committed by
tencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
a Child or Youth and the Sentencing of a Child or Youth Convicted of
2 Coppolo, G. (2008, February 14). Parole during the 1980s. Retrieved
Certain Felony Offenses, S. 796, 2015 Gen. Assem. (Conn.). Retrieved
January 19, 2016, from https://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0126.
from https://www.cga.ct.gov/2015/ACT/PA/2015PA-00084-R00SBhtm.
00796-PA.htm
3 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-125a(b)(1); Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-35b.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Florida
KEY FINDINGS
•

By 1995, Florida legislators had effectively eliminated the sentence of life with the possibility of parole,
though since 2014 people convicted under age 18 for crimes that carried mandatory life without parole
sentences have been eligible for alternative sentences. Parole-eligible lifers must serve 25 years before
they can be released. In 2010, wait times for parole consideration re-interviews was increased from
within five years to within seven years for certain convictions.

•

In 2016, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Commission on Offender Review, which sets
parole dates based on guidelines that are statutorily required to give primary weight to the severity
of the crime and criminal history, does not offer a meaningful chance of being paroled as required for
those convicted as juveniles.

•

Between 2005 and 2014, average time served for paroled Florida lifers with first-degree murder convictions increased slightly, from 27.4 to 29.4 years (based on 14 releases in each of those years).
Average time served for paroled lifers with second-degree murder convictions has ranged between
22.3 years (based on five releases in 2008) and 34.3 years (based on five releases in 2007).

•

In 2014 and some preceding years, paroled lifers convicted of second-degree murder had served longer
sentences than those paroled with first-degree murder convictions.

•

Florida conducts a small number of lifer parole hearings relative to the size of its lifer population,
averaging 65 hearings annually between 2006 and 2014, and falling well below this average in 2013
and 2014. Perhaps because of this small number of hearings, the state has had a relatively high grant
rate, in the range of 39% to 68%.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
In Florida, the 4,157 individuals with parole-eligible life
sentences constituted 4.2% of the state’s prison population in 2012.1 Almost twice as many people were
serving sentences of life without the possibility of
parole.2
Over the past few decades, Florida legislators have
enacted a number of changes that have delayed parole
eligibility for lifers, and eventually eliminated this sentence for adults. In 1983, Florida abolished parole
except for capital crimes.3 Individuals who received
life sentences as a result of a capital crime would
henceforth be eligible for parole after serving 25 years.4
Legislative changes in 1994 and 1995 effectively eliminated parole for all capital offenses as well, though
since 2014 people convicted under age 18 may receive

other sentences and those already sentenced may be
resentenced.5 In 2010, the state increased the waiting
period for parole consideration re-interviews from
within five years to within seven years for those convicted of murder, attempted murder, sexual battery, or
attempted sexual battery.6
In 2016, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that because
the state’s parole process precluded the possibility of
parole for an individual who had received a mandatory life sentence as a juvenile, it violated the U.S.
Supreme Court’s requirement to give individual sentencing consideration to juveniles. 7 Angelo Atwell had
been sentenced to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole after 25 years for having committed
first-degree murder in 1990. Based on parole guidelines

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
that are statutorily required to give primary weight to
the severity of the crime and criminal history, the Florida
Commission on Offender Review had determined that
Atwell could not be paroled until 2130, which the Court
noted was “one hundred and forty years after the crime
and far exceeding Atwell’s life expectancy.” 8
According to the Florida Commission on Offender
Review, life-sentenced individuals may not be present
at their parole hearings, but their legal representative
and family/friends may attend. A representative of the
parole commission visits the incarcerated individual
to conduct an interview, the recording of which is reviewed by the parole commissioners and contributes
to their votes.

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with Murder
Convictions in Florida, 2005-2014
35
30

Years

Second-degree murder

15
10
5
0
2006

2007

2008

2009

In the years when time served for those paroled with
second-degree murder convictions exceeded 30 years
(2006, 2007, and 2014), these individuals had served
longer sentences than those paroled with first-degree
murder convictions.

Between 2006 and 2012, there were on average 72 lifer
parole hearings conducted annually. In 2013 and 2014,
this average fell to 39. Throughout this period, the
state has had a relatively high annual grant rate,
ranging from 39% to 68%.

2005

Between 2005 and 2014, average time served for
paroled lifers convicted of first-degree murder increased slightly, from 27.4 to 29.4 years. Between 2005
and 2008, average time served for paroled lifers with
second-degree murder convictions reached a high of
34.0 years and dropped back to 22.3 and years. It then
climbed gradually to 33.4 years in 2014.

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES

First-degree murder

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates in
Florida, 2006-2014
100

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.
org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 Nellis, 2013
3 Florida Department of Corrections Bureau of Research and Data Analysis. (2003,
March). Historical summary of sentencing and punishment in Florida. Retrieved
from http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/history/
4 Capital felonies include: first-degree murder; sexual battery upon a child less
than 12 years old; drug trafficking; and the killing of another by distribution of
cocaine or opium or derivatives. Florida Commission on Offender Review. (2015,
December). Annual report 2015. Retrieved from https://www.fcor.state.fl.us/docs/
reports/FCORannualreport201415.pdf
5 Florida Department of Corrections Bureau of Research and Data Analysis, 2014;
Fla. Stat. § 775.082; Fla. Stat. § 921.1402. A report by the Robina Institute of
Criminal Law and Criminal Justice confirms that “Florida currently practices
discretionary release only for offenders who were sentenced prior to the effective

64%

54%

73%

2014

68%

2013

57%

2012

47%

2011

47%

2010

42%

2009

60
53%

2008

80
Number of hearings

2007

Second-degree
murder

2006

First-degree
murder

2005

Number of Paroled Lifers with Murder Convictions
in Florida, 2005-2014

Denied parole
Grant rate
Granted parole

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

date of the determinate sentencing statute” and not for incarcerated individuals
whose crimes were committed after 1994. See: Alper, M. E. (2016). By the numbers:
Parole release and revocation across 50 states. Retrieved from Robina Institute of
Criminal Law and Criminal Justice website: https://robinainstitute.umn.edu/
publications/numbers-parole-release-and-revocation-across-50-states, p. 33
6 Florida Commission on Offender Review. (2014, December). Annual report 2014.
Retrieved https://www.fcor.state.fl.us/docs/reports/FCORannualreport201314.
pdf; Florida Commission on Offender Review. (2004, December). Annual report
2003-2004. Retrieved from https://www.fcor.state.fl.us/docs/reports/FCORannualreport200304.pdf
7 Ovalle, D. (2016, May 26). Ruling gives hundreds of juvenile murderers shot at
new sentences. Miami Herald, Broward County. Retrieved from http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article80040602.html; Atwell
v. Florida, No. SC14-193 (Fla. May 26, 2016).
8 Atwell v. Florida, No. SC14-193 (Fla. May 26, 2016), p. 2.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Georgia
KEY FINDINGS
•

Georgia ranks fourth in the nation in the size of its parole-eligible lifer population. Since 1995, the
state has enacted statutory changes that delay parole eligibility for lifers convicted of serious violent
felonies, gradually increasing the required minimum sentence from seven to 30 years.

•

In 2015, time served for paroled lifers with first-degree murder convictions was 27.2 years, slightly
above the averages for the two preceding years for which data were provided.

•

The state increased the average annual number of lifer parole hearings from about 700 between 2001
and 2008 to about 1,000 between 2010 and 2014. During these periods, the parole grant rate fell from
23% to 19%.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
Georgia ranks fourth in the nation in the size of its
parole-eligible lifer population, with 7,125 people
serving this sentence in 2012—12.7% of the state’s
prison population.1 In 2016, 4,852 individuals were
serving parole-eligible life sentences for serious violent
felonies, also known as the “seven deadly sins”: armed
robbery, kidnapping, rape, murder, aggravated sodomy,
aggravated sexual battery, and aggravated child molestation.2

Those who are convicted of a second “seven deadly
sin” offense receive mandatory sentences of life
without the possibility of parole.5 A 2008 Department
of Corrections report noted (emphasis in original):6

Since 1995, Georgia has enacted statutory changes
that delay parole eligibility for lifers convicted of a
“seven deadly sin”:3

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with First-Degree
Murder Convictions* in Georgia, 2013-2015

•

If the crime was committed prior to 1995, the individual is likely eligible for parole after serving
seven years.
If the crime was committed between 1995 and July
1, 2006, the individual is eligible for parole after
serving 14 years.
If the crime was committed on or after July 1, 2006,
the individual is eligible for parole after serving 30
years.

In a 1998 press release titled “More Violent-Crime Lifers
Die in Prison than Are Paroled,” the Georgia State Board
of Pardons and Parole stated: “Parole for a life sentence
is a rare commodity.”4

30
25

27.2

25.4

24.5

2013

2014

20
Years

•

Georgia’s ‘Seven Deadly Sins’ law, for those seven
crimes, is the toughest in the nation. Not three strikes,
but two—and the second strike results in life without
possibility of parole.

15
10
5
0

2015

Number of Paroled Lifers with First-Degree Murder
Convictions* in Georgia, 2013-2015
2013

2014
41

2015
43

* “Murder” convictions are distinct from “second-degree murder”
convictions in Georgia and are similar to “first-degree murder” convictions
in other states.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES

In Georgia, the crime of murder is distinct from second-degree murder and is comparable to first-degree
murder in other states. Time served for lifers with such
murder convictions paroled between 2013 and 2015
has averaged 25.9 years. The annual number of such
individuals paroled increased from an average of 42
in 2013 and 2014 to 65 in 2015.

Since 2001, the number of lifer parole hearings has
increased while the grant rate has fallen.7 Lifer parole
hearings increased from an annual average of 714
between 2001 and 2008 to 1,027 between 2010 and
2014 (2009 data were unavailable). Between 2001 and
2008, annual parole grant rates fluctuated considerably
between 15% and 30% (averaging 23%). This range
has since fallen: between 2010 and 2014, grant rates
have been between 11% and 24% (averaging 19%).

Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates in Georgia, 2001-2014
1,500

Number of hearings

1200

900

600

19%

11%

21%

24%

20%

30%

21%

17%

28%

15%

30%

19%

300

27%

Denied parole

Granted parole

N/A

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Grant rate

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Note: Data not available for 2009

1 Only California, New York, and Texas have larger parole-eligible lifer
populations. Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved
from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/
Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 Figure provided by Georgia Department of Corrections; O.C.G.A. § 1710-6.1.
3 State Board of Pardons and Paroles. (n.d.). The parole process in Georgia.
Retrieved September 30, 2016, from https://pap.georgia.gov/parole-process-georgia-0; State Board of Pardons and Paroles. (n.d.). Life sentences. Retrieved September 30, 2016, from https://pap.georgia.gov/
life-sentences

4 News release, Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles, “More Violent-Crime Lifers Die in Prison than Are Paroled,” June 1, 1998, quoted
in Mauer, M., King, R., & Young, M. (2004). The meaning of ‘life’: Long
prison sentences in context. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
Retrieved from https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/
files/lifers.pdf
5 Carr, T. S. (2008, May 14). “Truth in sentencing” in Georgia. Retrieved
September 30, 2016, from Georgia Department of Corrections website:
http://www.dcor.state.ga.us/sites/all/files/pdf/Research/Standing/
Truth_in_sentencing.pdf
6 Carr, 2008
7 Number of lifer parole hearings and grant rates were drawn from the
annual reports of the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Hawaii
KEY FINDINGS
•

Since 2000, time served has increased dramatically in Hawaii for paroled lifers with murder convictions. This is especially true for those with first-degree murder convictions, for whom average time
served tripled, from 9.7 years in 2000 to 29.0 years in 2014 (based on three and one releases, respectively). Average time served for those paroled with second-degree murder convictions nearly doubled,
from 7.0 years in 2000 to 12.5 years in 2014 (based on one and three releases, respectively).

•

The gap between time served for lifers with first- and second-degree murder convictions has widened
in Hawaii. This is because the state’s growth in time served for first-degree murder has outpaced the
growth for second-degree murder.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED

Hawaii has a fairly large parole-eligible lifer population
relative to its total prison population: 365 individuals
who constituted 10.2% of the state’s prison population
in 2012.1 Currently, adults convicted in this state of
first-degree murder or first-degree attempted murder
receive an automatic life sentence without the possibility of parole.2 After 20 years of time served the Hawaii
paroling authority is required to prepare an application
for the governor to commute the sentence to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole.3 Those
convicted of second-degree murder or second-degree
attempted murder are sentenced to life with the possibility of parole, with some exceptions.4

Time served has steadily increased between 2000 and
2014 for paroled lifers with murder convictions.
Between 2000 and 2007, average time served for lifers
released with first-degree murder convictions was 16.3
years. Time served grew to 26.5 years for those released between 2008 and 2014. Similarly, average time
served for lifers released with second-degree murder
convictions released between 2000 and 2007 was 10.6
years. Time served grew to 13.9 years for those released between 2008 and 2014. Because the growth
in time served for first-degree murder outpaced the
growth for second-degree murder, the gap between
average time served for these crimes increased from
5.7 to 12.6 years during these periods.

In 2016, the legislature slightly expanded Hawaii’s
relatively narrow definition of first-degree murder.5
Previously, the first-degree murder charge applied to
murders such as those committed in prison, involving
multiple victims, or if the victim was a criminal justice
professional or witness or an individual that the offender was court-restrained from contacting. The new
legislation now includes “circumstances in which the
defendant intentionally or knowingly causes the death
of a person by restraining and using that person as a
shield, holding that person hostage, or for ransom or
reward.” 6

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
Time Served for Paroled Lifers with Murder Convictions in Hawaii, 2000-2014
30

First-degree murder

Years

15
Second-degree murder

0
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Number of Lifers with Murder Convictions Paroled in Hawaii, 2000-2014
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

First-degree murder

Second-degree murder

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES
Data were not provided on lifer parole hearing outcomes.

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.4 Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 706-656. The court may sentence an individual
to life without parole for second degree murder if the crime was espeWashington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sencially “heinous” or if the person was previously convicted of murder.
tencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
See: Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 706-606.5.
2 In 2014, Hawaii eliminated juvenile life without parole sentences. Those
convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree attempted murder 5 Khon2 Web Staff. (2016, July 6). New law broadens definition of first-degree murder in Hawaii [Newsgroup post]. Retrieved from http://khon2.
will be sentenced to life with the possibility of parole. Khon2 Web Staff.
com/2016/07/06/new-law-broadens-definition-of-first-degree-murder(2014, July 2). Hawaii abolishes life without parole sentence for juveniles
in-hawaii/
[Newsgroup post]. Retrieved from http://khon2.com/2014/07/02/ha6 Khon2 Web Staff, 2016
waii-abolishes-life-without-parole-sentence-for-juveniles/
3 Haw. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 706-656

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Illinois
KEY FINDINGS
•

Having eliminated parole for life sentences in 1977, Illinois reported having only five individuals still
serving parole-eligible life sentences in 2014.

•

Between 1989 and 2014, death in prison was the most likely outcome for the 16 parole-eligible lifers
for whom data were provided. Ten of these individuals died in prison, having served an average sentence of 33.9 years. Four remained incarcerated in 2014, having served an average of 48.3 years until
that point. Only two of these lifers were paroled, one in 2005 and the other in 2007, having served an
average sentence of 45.2 years.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
In 2014, there were five individuals serving parole-eligible life sentences in Illinois, constituting 0.1% of the
state’s prison population.1 A much larger number of
people, 1,609, were serving sentences of life without
the possibility of parole (3.3% of the prison population).2
In 1977, Illinois shifted to a determinate sentencing
system and eliminated parole for life sentences.3 In
1995, the state passed truth-in-sentencing policies
requiring those convicted of murder to serve 100% of

their sentence, and those convicted of other violent
crimes to serve 85% of their sentence. Prior to this
policy change, individuals sentenced to murder typically served less than 40% of their sentence as a result
of various good time credits.4 The sentence for first-degree murder is 20 to 60 years, or life without parole (or
death, until 2011 when the state abolished the death
penalty). In 2015, the legislature eliminated mandatory life without parole sentences for juveniles, as required by Miller v. Alabama in 2012.5

Average Time Served A
mong Lifersin Illinois, 1989-2014
Years
0

Released

Died

45.2

33.9

Remained
incarcerated
The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

48.3

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED

Data were provided for 16 life-sentenced individuals
whose release required the parole board’s approval
between 1989 and 2014.6 Only two of these individuals
were paroled, one in 2005 and the other in 2007. Both
began having parole hearings as early as 1988. Ten of
the 16 parole-eligible lifers died while incarcerated,
and four remained in prison in 2014.7

Average time served for the two paroled lifers parole
was 45.2 years (44.8 for the individual released in 2005
and 45.5 years for the individual released in 2007).
Average time served for the 10 who died was 33.9
years (ranging from 15.3 years to 65.5 years). Finally,
average time served for the four who remained incarcerated in 2014 was 48.3 years (ranging from 39.1
years to 60.8 years).

1 Illinois Department of Corrections. (2015, June). Fiscal year 2014 annual
report (D. Short, Ed.). Retrieved from https://www.illinois.gov/idoc/reportsandstatistics/Documents/FY2014%20Annual%20Report.pdf
2 Illinois Department of Corrections, 2015
3 Illinois State Commission on Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform.
(n.d.). Illinois prison overview. Retrieved October 3, 2016, from http://
www.icjia.org/cjreform2015/research/illinois-prison-overview.html
4 The impact of Illinois’ truth-in-sentencing law on sentence lengths, time to
serve and disciplinary incidents of convicted murderers and sex offenders
(D. E. Olson, M. Seng, J. Boulger, & M. McClure, Comps.). (2009, June).

Retrieved from Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority website:
http://www.icjia.state.il.us/assets/pdf/ResearchReports/FINAL%20
REPORT%20The%20Impact%20of%20Illinois%20Truth-in-Sentencing%20Law%200609.pdf
5 H.B. 2471 (2015)
6 We did not calculate parole grant rates due to the challenges of interpreting the data.
7 This count of four is one less than the population count cited above
from the Department of Corrections annual report.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Iowa
KEY FINDINGS
•

Iowa, a state that eliminated parole for life sentences, has recently begun implementing reforms to
comply with the Supreme Court’s prohibition of life-without-parole sentences for many juveniles.

•

Between 2011 and 2014, the state had a low grant rate for its small but growing number of lifer parole
hearings, with annual grant rates between 0% and 13%

•

During this period, the state paroled two individuals whose previous life-without-parole sentences
for first-degree murder were modified to life with the possibility of parole. In 2013, an individual who
was resentenced for a juvenile conviction was paroled, having served 17.9 years. In 2014, an individual whose sentence for an adult conviction was commuted was paroled, having served 39.2 years.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
Iowa prisons had 45 people with parole-eligible life
sentences in 2012, constituting 0.5% of its prison
population.1 A much larger number of people, 635,
were serving parole-ineligible life sentences—7.7% of
the prison population.2 The state is one of six that has
abolished parole for life sentences.3 First-degree
murder is a Class A felony and carries a mandatory
life without parole sentence.4 Individuals convicted of
a Class A felony are eligible for parole only if the governor first commutes their sentence to a term of years.5
Legislators and the courts have taken several steps
in recent years to create the possibility of parole for
people convicted as juveniles, as described next.
To comply with Graham v. Florida, Iowa revised its laws
in 2011 so that people convicted under age 18 of a
Class A felony other than first-degree murder would
not be sentenced to life without parole (LWOP).6
Instead, these individuals would be required to serve
25 years before they could be parole-eligible. In 2015,
the legislature eliminated this requirement: Juveniles
convicted of a Class A felony other than first-degree
murder would be sentenced to life with the possibility
of parole, with or without a minimum term of confinement determined by the court.7
To comply with Miller v. Alabama, Governor Terry Branstad commuted of all juvenile LWOP sentences for a
Class A felony of first-degree murder to life with the

possibility of parole after serving 60 years.8 The Iowa
Supreme Court effectively challenged this revised
sentence in 2014’s State v. Lyle, when it struck down
all mandatory minimum penalties for juveniles, including for those who had been previously sentenced.9 In
2015, Iowa passed new laws stipulating that juveniles
convicted of first-degree murder could be sentenced
to life without parole (with the possibility of a governor
commutation), or life with the possibility of parole (with
or without a minimum term of confinement determined
by the court).10 In 2016, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled
that life without parole sentences for juveniles amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and were therefore
unconstitutional.11

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED
Between 2011 and 2014, the state paroled two individuals whose previous life-without-parole sentences
were modified to life with the possibility of parole. In
2013, an individual who was resentenced for a juvenile
conviction was paroled, having served 17.9 years. In
2014, an individual whose sentence for an adult conviction was commuted was paroled, having served
39.2 years. Both had been convicted of first-degree
murder.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
Time Served for Paroled Lifers in Iowa,
2011-2014
40

Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates
in Iowa, 2011-2014

39.2

12
10

Denied parole

4
Grant rate

No releases

2011

2012

2013

2014

No hearings

2
2011

2012

17.9

13%

Number of hearings

Years

Granted parole

2013

2014

Note:One person released in both 2
013 and 2014.

Number of Paroled Lifers in Iowa, 2011-2014
2011

2012
0

2013
0

2014
1

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES
Iowa has had a low parole grant rate for its small but
growing number of lifer parole hearings: an annual
range of 0% to 13%.

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 Nellis, 2013
3 Iowa Legislative Services Agency. (2015). Legislative Guide: Legal Services
Division. Retrieved from https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/
LG/14969.pdf
4 Iowa Code § 707.2
5 Iowa Code § 902.1
6 Iowa Legislative Services Agency, 2015
7 Iowa Legislative Services Agency, 2015

8 Wiser, M. (2014, March 31). Branstad commutes life sentences for 38
Iowa juvenile murderers. The Gazette. Retrieved from http://www.thegazette.com/2012/07/16/branstad-commutes-life-sentences-for-38-iowa-juvenile-murderers
9 State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378 (Iowa 2014)
10 Iowa Legislative Services Agency, 2015
11 Philipps, D. (2016, May 27). Iowa court rejects life without parole for
juveniles. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.
com/2016/05/28/us/life-sentences-juveniles-iowa-isaiah-sweet.html?_
r=0

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Maine
KEY FINDINGS
•

Maine1 had four remaining parole-eligible lifers in 2016 that had been in prison for four decades. Their
first-degree murder convictions predated 1976, when the state abolished parole for life sentences.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES

Maine has one of the smallest lifer populations in the
country, with its four parole-eligible lifers constituting
0.2% of the state’s prison population in 2012.2 The
state eliminated parole entirely for life sentences in
1976 and replaced it with determinate sentencing.3
Sentences for murder convictions have ranged from
25 years to life in prison without parole.4 In 2012, 55
people were serving sentences of life without the
possibility of parole.5

Data were not provided on lifer parole hearing outcomes.

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED
Given that the state’s four parole-eligible lifers were
sentenced for first-degree murders committed before
1976, they had been incarcerated for four decades by
2016.

1 Data for this state received from Neale Duffett, former Chair of the
State of Maine Parole Board.
2 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf

3 Anspach, D., Lehman, P., & Kramer, J. (1983). Maine rejects indeterminacy - A case study of flat sentencing and parole abolition. National Institute
of Justice.
4 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 1251
5 Nellis, 2013

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Maryland
KEY FINDINGS
•

Although a considerable percentage of Maryland’s prison population (9.8%) is sentenced to life with
the possibility of parole, the state did not parole any of these individuals between 1996 and 2014.

•

Gubernatorial authority to reverse the Parole Commission’s decisions has all but eliminated the practical possibility of parole for lifers in this state. Between 2006 and 2014, the Parole Commission
recommended five parole-eligible lifers for parole, 66 for commutation, and eight for medical parole.
Between 1996 and 2014, governors did not accept any of the Parole Commission’s parole recommendations and commuted only a handful of sentences.

•

Maryland requires life-sentenced individuals to serve a minimum of 15 to 25 years before being considered for release.

•

Time served for the 26 lifers paroled between 1990 and 1995 was in the range of 18.3 and 21.9 years.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
A considerable percentage of Maryland’s prison population, 9.8%, was serving a parole-eligible life sentence
in 2012: 2,090 individuals.1
Parole-eligible lifers face three major hurdles to qualifying for parole:
•

•

First, they must serve a minimum of 15 years—or
25 years for certain individuals convicted of first-degree murder—before being considered for release.2
Second, the Parole Commission must recommend
them for parole. Between 2006 and 2014, the Parole
Commission recommended five parole-eligible
lifers for parole; in addition, it recommended 66
for commutation and eight for medical parole.3
Finally, Maryland is one of just five states where
governors must approve the Parole Commission’s
recommendation before an individual serving a life
sentence can be paroled.4 Following a high-profile
murder in 1993, Governor Parris Glendening initiated a policy of uniformly denying all lifer parole
applications. The three governors in office between
1996 and 2014—Glendening, Robert Ehrlich, and

Martin O’Malley—did not accept any of the Parole
Commission’s parole recommendations and commuted a handful of recommended cases. Specifically, Glendening commuted none, Ehrlich commuted five, and O’Malley commuted three.5 Glendening later publicly expressed regret about his
approach.6
In 2011, the General Assembly passed legislation requiring that the governor act upon the Parole Commission’s recommendations within 180 days. A 2015 bill
sought to eliminate gubernatorial approval of the Parole
Commission’s decisions.7
In 2012, the Maryland Court of Appeals found in Unger
v. State that a jury instruction used by Maryland courts
until 1981 had denied defendants due process.8 Since
then, over 130 elderly lifers have been released.9

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES

Between 1990 and 1995, 26 lifers were paroled. The
annual average time served for these individuals was
between 18.3 and 21.9 years.10 Twenty-two people in
this group had murder convictions. Between 1996 and
2014, the state did not parole anyone with a parole-eligible life sentence.

Data were not provided on lifer parole hearing outcomes. See “Overview and Policy Highlights” section
for an aggregate count of parole recommendations by
the Parole Commission between 2006 and 2014 as
well as gubernatorial actions between 1996 and 2014.

Time Served for All Paroled Lifers in Maryland, 1990-2014
30
25
21.8
20.7

21.9

Years

18.3

15
10
5

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994*

1993

1992

1991

No releases
1990

*No length-of-stay data were available for this year

Number of Paroled Lifers in Maryland, 1990-2014
1990 1991

1992 1993

1994 1995 1996-2014

Number paroled – all lifers

Number paroled with murder convictions

Note: Length-of-stay data were only provided for all lifers and was not available for the individual released in 1994.
1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 Md. Code Ann. § 7-301(d)
3 Lomax, W., & Kumar, S. (2015, January). Still blocking the exit. Retrieved
from http://www.abell.org/sites/default/files/publications/afr-stillblockingexit215.pdf
4 The other states are: California, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Washington.
See: Weisberg, R., Mukamal, D. A., & Segall, J. D. Life in limbo. Retrieved
from http://static.prisonpolicy.org/scans/SCJC_report_Parole_Release_
for_Lifers.pdf; Washington State Office of the Attorney General. (2013,
November 7). Washington Supreme Court issues 9-0 ruling in parole review
case [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.atg.wa.gov/news/
news-releases/washington-supreme-court-issues-9-0-ruling-parolereview-case (See: Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9.95.160)
5 The Maryland Restorative Justice Institute and the ACLU of Maryland
have produced profiles of many of the 79 people who were recommended for release by the Maryland Parole Commission between 2006 and
2015 but were not released. Lomax & Kumar, 2015; correspondence
with Walter Lomax.
6 Rodricks, D. (2011, February 20). Glendening: ‘Life means life’ absolut-

ism was wrong. Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011-02-20/news/bs-ed-rodricks-glendeningoped-20110220_1_life-without-parole-death-penalty-maryland-parole-commission
7 Rabner, N. (2015, February 20). Bill Would Remove Governor from Decision-Making on Parole for Lifers. Capital News Service. Retrieved from
http://cnsmaryland.org/2015/02/20/bill-would-remove-governor-fromdecision-making-on-parole-for-lifers/
8 Unger v. State, 427 Md. 383 (2012)
9 Siegel, R. & Ozug, M. (2016, February 18). From a life term to life on the
outside: When aging felons are freed. National Public Radio. Retrieved
from http://www.npr.org/2016/02/18/467057603/from-a-life-term-tolife-on-the-outside-when-aging-felons-are-freed
10 For the years 1990-1995, we relied on data from the Office of Grants,
Policy, and Statistics (GPS). The Maryland Parole Commission (MPC)
reported a slightly different number of individuals released for these
years but was unable to provide length-of-stay information. MPC staff
cautioned that GPS data were maintained by non-MPC staff and could
not be validated by their office. We decided to use these data since
they contained length-of-stay information. There was no discrepancy
between GPS and MPC data for the years 1996-2014.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Massachusetts
KEY FINDINGS
•

People serving a parole-eligible life sentence in Massachusetts qualify for parole after serving 15 to
25 years and may be required to wait up to five years for a subsequent hearing if they are denied
parole at their initial hearing.

•

Following a high-profile murder in 2010, Massachusetts’s then-governor overhauled the state’s parole
process. Consequently, the release of parole-eligible lifers with second-degree murder convictions
dropped precipitously in 2011, from an average of 28 annual releases in the previous five years to
eight annually for the following three years. The total number of lifers granted parole, regardless of
conviction, increased from five to 17 between 2011 and 2013.

•

The parole grant rate for all parole-eligible lifers increased from 6% to 20% between 2011 and 2013.
The grant rate in 2013 is estimated to be below the rate in 2010. Moreover, the grant rate fell back to
6% between October 2015 and May 2016.

•

Between 2006 and 2013, time served for released lifers with second-degree murder convictions remained relatively stable, averaging 19.7 years.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
Massachusetts prisons held 930 people with parole-eligible life sentences in 2012, constituting 9.1% of the
state’s prison population.1 In addition, a significant
number of people were serving parole-ineligible life
sentences.
The state’s 1993 truth-in-sentencing law raised the
point of parole eligibility for all sentences from onethird or two-thirds of the minimum term to the full
minimum term.2 Currently, people serving parole-eligible life sentences qualify for parole after serving 15
to 25 years.3 If the parole board denies parole after the
initial hearing, the individual is provided with a subsequent review hearing five years later, or earlier at the
discretion of the board.
Following a high-profile killing of a police officer in
December 2010, and a Boston Globe analysis of recidivism rates, then-Governor Deval Patrick overhauled
the state’s parole process.4 His changes included
appointing a former prosecutor to chair the parole

board—who adopted more stringent release guidelines—and replacing five of the seven parole board
members with new members, four of whom had law
enforcement backgrounds.5
First-degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of
life without parole for adults.6 As of December 24, 2013,
individuals who committed first-degree murder under
the age of 18 are eligible for parole after serving 20 to
30 years in prison.7 In 2014, legislators established a
commission to study if and how the state should create
a process for the parole board to evaluate the developmental progress of parole-eligible lifers convicted
as juveniles.8 In 2016, the commission issued a report
concluding that “current practice and procedures are
sufficient such that the creation of a specialized evaluation process for all cases of murder committed by
juveniles is not necessary.”9

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED
Between 2006 and 2013, time served for paroled lifers
with second-degree murder convictions remained
stable, with released lifers having served an average
of 19.7 years in prison during this period. However, the
number of individuals paroled dropped precipitously
during this period. Between 2006 and 2010, the state
paroled between 24 and 32 people with second-degree
murder convictions each year. But between 2011 and
2013, that number fell to 8 per year.

In addition, the average wait time for a parole decision
after a hearing increased from 1.4 months in 2010 to
10.4 months in early 2013.10 Finally, while individuals
who were paroled between 2006 and 2010 waited an
average of 9.6 months to be released after being
granted parole, this wait increased to almost one and
a half years for those paroled between 2011 and 2013.

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with Second-Degree Murder Convictions in Massachusetts, 2006-2013
25

Years

20
15
10
5
0

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Number of Paroled Lifers with Second-Degree Murder Convictions in Massachusetts, 2006-2013

Number of People

30
25
20
15
10
5
0

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Our analysis of lifer parole grant rates begins in 2011,
when the state began tracking parole grants for firsttime releases from a life-sentence separately from
those following parole revocation. Between 2011 and
2013, an average of 93 hearings were conducted each
year and the grant rate increased from 6% to 20%.11
Consequently, the total number of lifers granted parole
has increased from five to 17 during this period, even
though the number released with second-degree
murder convictions is significantly smaller than in
previous years, as described above.
Jean Trounstine’s calculations suggest that 2013’s
grant rate remains below the rate in 2010.12 Moreover,
grant rates have declined again since 2015, when the
parole board began to operate under a newly appointed chair. Between October 2015 and May 2016, three
out of 48 hearings (6%) resulted in a parole grant.13

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in
America. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from:
http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-GoesOn.pdf
2 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections. (1995,
May). State legislative actions on truth in sentencing: A review of law
and legislation in the context of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (LIS, Inc., Comp.). Retrieved from http://static.
nicic.gov/Library/012259.pdf
3 Mass. Gen. Law. c. 279 § 24
4 Trounstine, J. (2013, July). Why Massachusetts’ parole system requires
reform. Boston Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.bostonmagazine.
com/news/article/2013/06/25/massachusetts-needs-parole-reform;
Trounstine, J. (2011, August). Patrick’s folly. Boston Magazine. Retrieved
from http://www.bostonmagazine.com/2011/07/patricks-folly-parole-reform-in-massachusetts/; Gottschalk, M. (2016). Caught: The
prison state and the lockdown of American politics. Princeton University Press.
5 White paper: The current state of parole in Massachusetts (L. Walker,
J. Pingeon, S. Y. Marzouk, T. Pritchard, & P. Garin, Comps.). (2013,
February). Retrieved from http://www.cjpc.org/2013/White-Paper-Addendum-2.25.13.pdf

Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates in
Massachusetts, 2011-2013
120

100

Number of hearings

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES

Denied parole

15%

20%

2011

Grant rate

Granted parole

2012

2013

6 Mass. Gen. Law. c. 265 § 2.
7 See: Mass. Gen. Law. c. 279 § 24.
8 An Act Relative to Juvenile Life Sentences for First Degree Murder, H.R.
4307, 188th Gen. Court (Mass. 2014).
9 Report of the Juvenile Life Sentence Commission, (Mass. 2016). Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/eopss/docs/eops/publications/
report-of-the-juvenile-life-sentence-commission-6-15-16.pdf
10 Trounstine, 2013
11 Parole grant rates calculated based on positive votes at initial or review
hearings (which are distinct from review after revocation hearings).
Massachusetts advocates have cautioned us that positive votes can
also be contingent on the expectation that the incarcerated individual
has to comply with some condition before release, whose absence
prevents parole.
12 Trounstine, 2013
13 Note that two of the individuals granted parole were referred to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Based on data collected by Jean
Trounstine.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Michigan
KEY FINDINGS

•

Changes in the parole review process in Michigan since the early 1990s—such as restructuring the
parole board’s membership from civil service members to political appointees and increasing wait
times between hearings from two to five years—have delayed parole for many lifers. Moreover, the
state allows presiding judges to prevent the parole board from granting parole and until 2017, it had
granted this authority to successor judges. Since the mid-2000’s, the parole board has shown greater
willingness to parole some of the individuals caught in this backlog.

•

The number of paroled lifers with non-drug convictions has increased from two in 2005 to 36 in 2015.

•

Between 2005 and 2014, the annual average time served for all released lifers with non-drug convictions was in the range of 23.0 and 34.1 years. During this period, the annual average time served for
lifers released with second-degree murder convictions was in the range of 19.4 and 36.2 years.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
There were 1,502 individuals with parole-eligible life
sentences in Michigan in 2012, constituting 3.5% of
the state’s prison population.1 In addition, a significant
number of people were serving parole-ineligible life
sentences.
Most individuals serving life sentences for crimes
other than first-degree murder are eligible for parole
after serving 10 years if the crime was committed
before October 1, 1992, or after 15 years if the crime
was committed afterwards.2 However, individuals
serving life sentences for drug offenses who had their
sentences reduced from life without parole following
reforms to the “650 Lifer Law” are usually parole-eligible after 17.5 years, though eligibility can be increased
to 20 years or decreased to 15 years depending on
statutorily proscribed factors.3 Life without parole is
mandatory for adult first-degree murder convictions.4
Beginning in 1992, the state implemented several
structural and procedural changes so that its parole
board would follow a “life means life” policy—granting
parole to very few lifers, against the expectations of
sentencing judges up until that point.5 This included
changing the board’s membership from civil service
members to political appointees, increasing wait times
between reviews from every two to every five years,

allowing “file reviews” that do not involve in-person
interviews, and permitting issuance of “no interest”
decisions that do not require explanation.6 Lifers convicted before 1992 won a federal class action lawsuit
in 2007 finding that the new parole policies violated
the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which
prohibits increasing penalties after a sentence has
been imposed, but the Sixth Circuit reversed this decision in 2010.7
Since 1953, Michigan law has allowed presiding judges
or their successors to prevent the parole board from
granting parole.8 Citizens Alliance on Prisons and
Public Spending (CAPPS) notes that between January
2005 and December 2013, the parole board cancelled
50 of the 223 hearings for non-drug lifers in response
to judicial objections that prohibited the board from
having jurisdiction to release.9 With the passage of HB
5273 in 2016 and its enactment in 2017, successor
judges can no longer prevent the board from granting
parole.10
Since the late 2000’s, the parole board has shown
greater willingness to parole some of the lifers caught
in this backlog. According to Barbara Levine, “the
problem has shifted from being a policy of no lifer
paroles to being a process that is way too slow, opaque
and arbitrary.”11

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

The average time served for the two lifers with nondrug convictions released in 2005 was 23.0 years. The
annual average time served for lifers with these convictions then increased to between 28.2 and 34.1 years
between 2006 and 2014. More specifically:
•

•

The average time served for the lifer released in
2005 with a second-degree murder conviction was
19.4 years. Between 2006 and 2014, the annual
average time served for lifers released with second-degree murder convictions ranged between
28.4 and 36.2 years.
The average time served for the lifer released in
2005 with a non-drug conviction other than second-degree murder was 26.5 years. Between 2006
and 2014, the annual average time served for lifers
released with such convictions ranged between
26.4 and 34.1 years.

40
35

Second-degree
murder convictions
All non-drug convictions

30
Other non-drug convictions

25
Years

The number of released lifers with non-drug convictions
increased substantially between 2005 and 2014, from
two to 22 in those years. CAPPS estimates that the
number of non-drug lifers paroled in 2015 was 36.13
The small number of releases at the beginning of this
period was a continuation of the parole board’s “life
means life” policy dating from the early-1990s.14 But
this pattern changed by the late-2000s, as “litigation,
budget pressures and parole board leadership combined to stimulate a modest but marked increase in
lifer paroles.”15

Time Served for Non-Drug Lifers Paroled in
Michigan, 2005-2014

20
15
10
5
0

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of Lifers Paroled in Michigan, 2005-2014
30
Other non-drug
convictions

25
Second-degree
murder convictions

20
Number of People

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED12

15
9
11

16
13

10
6

10
8

5
0

1
1

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

PAROLE HEARINGS AND GRANT
RATES

CAPPS has estimated that in 2013, 863 non-drug lifers
had served enough time to be eligible for parole.16 On
average, these individuals had served 29 years.17

Data were not provided on lifer parole hearing outcomes.

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.
org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 Mich. Comp. Laws § 791.234
3 Personal correspondence with Barbara Levine.
4 Levine, B. R. (2015, June). 10,000 fewer Michigan prisoners: Strategies to reach the
goal. Retrieved from Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending website:
http://2015capps.capps-mi.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CAPPS-report-10000-fewer-prisoners.pdf. Juveniles convicted of first-degree murder may
be sentenced to 25 to 60 years or life without parole. See: Mich. Comp. Laws §
769.25
5 Levine, B. R. (2014, February). Parolable lifers in Michigan: Paying the price of unchecked discretion. Retrieved from Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending website: http://www.capps-mi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Parolable-Lifers-in-Michigan-Paying-the-price-of-unchecked-discretion.pdf; Levine, B. R. (2006,
September). When “life” did not mean life: A historical analysis of life sentences
imposed in Michigan since 1900. Retrieved from Citizens Alliance on Prisons and
Public Spending website: http://www.capps-mi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/5.5-When-life-did-not-mean-life-CAPPS-report-2006.pdf; Levine,
2015

6 Levine, 2015; Levine, 2014
7 Foster-Bey v. Rubitschun, No. 05-71318, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95748 (E.D.Mich.
Oct. 23, 2007); Foster v. Booker, 595 F.3d 353 (6th Cir. 2010).
8 Levine, 2015
9 Levine, 2014
10 H.R. 5273, 2016 Leg. (Mich.). Retrieved from http://www.legislature.mi.gov/
(S(pjwiug3chzynfoqbeo4clqyl))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2016-HB-5273
11 Personal correspondence with Barbara Levine.
12 Data provided by Barbara R. Levine of Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public
Spending (CAPPS).
13 Personal correspondence with Barbara Levine.
14 Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending. (2013, June). Michigan’s parolable lifers: The cost of a broken process. Retrieved from http://www.capps-mi.
org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/The-cost-of-a-broken-process.pdf
15 Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending, 2013
16 Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending, 2013. Since this calculation,
another 90 individuals who had consecutive sentences have also become eligible for parole (source: Barbara Levine).
17 Citizens Alliance on Prisons and Public Spending, 2013

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Minnesota
KEY FINDINGS
•

Beginning in 1989, the Minnesota legislature increased minimum sentences for parole eligibility from
17 to 30 years for life sentences for first-degree murder convictions. In subsequent years, the legislature enhanced the sentencing in certain first-degree murder convictions to require life without
parole.

•

Time served for paroled lifers with first-degree murder convictions grew by 34% from 1990 and 1991
to 2012 and 2013, from an average of 17.4 to 23.4 years, with two individuals released in each period.
These were the only years for which such data were provided.

•

Between 1982 and 2013, the state gradually increased its number of lifer parole hearings while its
parole grant rate has ranged between 0% and 25% annually.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
The 426 individuals serving parole-eligible life sentences in Minnesota represented 4.5% of the state’s prison
population in 2012.1
In 1989, the legislature began increasing the minimum
sentences that lifers with first-degree murder convictions must serve before becoming eligible for parole,
from 17 to 30 years.2 In subsequent years, the legislature has also begun requiring life without parole for
certain first-degree murder convictions.3

but was able to provide data on lifers with first-degree
murder convictions released in four years. For the one
individual paroled each year in 1990 and 1991, time
served was 17.1 and 17.7 years, respectively. Time
served grew to 23.3 and 23.5 years for the single individual paroled each year in 2012 and 2013, respectively. This represented a 34% increase across these two
periods.

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with First-Degree
An advisory panel reviews each case and makes release Murder Convictions in Minnesota, 1990, 1991,
decisions based in part on a series of meetings with 2012, 2013

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED
Average time served for all lifers granted parole
between 1982 and 2013 was 22.5 years. The state
could not break this information down for each year

35
30
25
Years

the victim’s family and the incarcerated individual who
participates via teleconference.4 Incarcerated individuals may choose to have an advocate of their choosing (including an attorney) present during the proceedings for support and to speak on their behalf.

23.3

23.5

2012

2013

20
17.1

17.7

15
10
5
0
1990

1991

Note: Based on one individual released each of these years

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES
Between 1982 and 2013, the state gradually increased
its number of lifer parole hearings while its parole grant
rate has ranged from 0% to 25% annually. Specifically:

•

Between 2000 and 2009, there were an average 31
parole hearings each year, and 12% of hearings
resulted in grants.

•

Between 1982 and 1989, there were an average
two parole hearings each year, and no lifers were
granted parole.

•

Between 2010 and 2013, the average annual
number of hearings remained at the previous decade’s level, 31, while the grant rate fell to 9%.

•

Between 1990 and 1999, there were an average 15
parole hearings each year, and 10% of hearings
resulted in grants.

Eight percent of those who were granted parole over
this time period began a consecutive sentence.

Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates in Minnesota, 1982-2013
60

25%

Denied parole

3%
2013

2012

2011

2010

Grant rate

2009

17%
2008

19%
2007

2006

15%

11%
2005

4%
2004

2001

2003

10%

16%

20%

6%
2000

1999

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 Minnesota Department of Corrections. (n.d.). DOC Background/History:
1984 - 1999. Retrieved October 13, 2016, from http://www.doc.state.
mn.us/pages/index.php/about/agency-background-history/1984-1999/
3 Minn. Stat. § 244.05

1998

1995

1996

1993

1994

1992

1991

1990

1989

1987

1988

1986

1985

1984

1997

18%

17%

12%

13%

25%

1983

1982

13%

2002

Number of hearings

Granted parole

4 Minnesota Department of Corrections. (2015, March). Life sentence
review process (Policy No. 203.060). Retrieved from http://www.doc.
state.mn.us/DocPolicy2/html/DPW_Display_TOC.asp?Opt=203.060.
htm; personal correspondence with Deb Kerschner, Director of Planning
& Performance at Minnesota Department of Corrections.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Missouri
KEY FINDINGS
•

In 1994, Missouri overhauled its sentencing laws to require lifers convicted of a “dangerous felony”
to wait 23 years for their first parole hearing—10 years longer than under the previous law. Because
none of these individuals had yet become parole-eligible by 2015, this analysis focuses on lifers convicted of violent offenses prior to this date. This includes individuals with first-degree murder convictions predating 1984, when the state abolished parole for this offense.

•

Between 1991 and 2014, average time served for all released lifers grew by 68%, from 15.0 to 25.2
years. The growth in time served was even more dramatic for those with murder convictions: 83% for
first-degree murder and 106% for second-degree murder.

•

The state has increased its number of lifer parole hearings from an average annual of 113 between
1991 and 1999 to 185 between 2000 and 2013. The net parole grant rate has varied over time, averaging 13% during this entire period—this rate excludes the board’s reversal of 24% of its initial grant
decisions.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
The 1,744 individuals serving parole-eligible life sentences in Missouri represented 5.6% of the state’s
prison population in 2012.1 In addition, a significant
number of people were serving parole-ineligible life
sentences.
Individuals convicted of first-degree murder before
1984 could receive sentences of life with the possibility of parole.2 After 1984, the sentence for that offense
became life without parole or the death penalty.3 Following the passage of SB 590 in 2016, anyone sentenced to life without parole for juvenile convictions
before August 28, 2016, may petition for parole after
serving 25 years.4 Juveniles convicted after that date
may be sentenced to life without parole, life with parole,
or a term between 30 and 40 years; all can petition for
resentencing after serving 25 years.5
The legislature’s passage of a truth-in-sentencing law
in 1994, SB763, significantly increased the minimum
time that lifers have to serve before becoming eligible
for parole. Under the new law, individuals convicted
of a “dangerous felony”—arson 1, assault 1, forcible

rape, forcible sodomy, kidnapping, murder 2, and
robbery 1—would become parole-eligible after serving
85% of their prison term.6 Lifers serving 85% of their
time for a dangerous felony would be required to wait
23 years for their first hearing (and to serve 25.5 years
before being released) whereas lifers convicted of
violent offenses prior to this law had their first hearings
scheduled at 13 years.7 No lifer sentenced under the
new law had been released by 2015.8
Missouri allows a select few individuals sentenced to
“life with no parole for fifty years” or life without parole
to become parole-eligible after serving 15 years.9 These
individuals must satisfy a variety of criteria to be eligible, including having no prior felony convictions and
having a history of being victimized. These individuals
are excluded from the analyses below, unless they
were resentenced to life with the possibility of parole.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED
On average, 20 parole-eligible lifers were released
annually between 1991 and 2014. This level fell by half
between 1996 and 2002 but has since increased. The
average time served for all paroled lifers grew by 68%
between 1991 and 2014, from 15.0 years to 25.2 years.
The growth in time served has been most dramatic for
those with second-degree murder convictions—more

than doubling from 11.9 years to 24.6 years during
this period. Time served for first-degree murder grew
by 83% across these years, from 16.6 years to 30.3
years. Throughout this period, lifers waited an average
of 2.2 years to be released from prison after being
granted parole.

Time Served for Paroled Lifers in Missouri, 1991-2014

40
First-degree murder

35
30

All lifers

Years

Second-degree murder
Other

20
15
10
5
0

1991

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

2013

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Number of Lifers Paroled from Missouri Prisons, 1991-2014

Second-degree
murder

Other

First-degree
murder

All lifers

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES
One average, 113 lifer parole hearings were conducted
annually between 1991 and 1999. This figure increased
to 185 between 2000 and 2013. The net parole grant
rate, excluding the board’s reversal of its initial grant
decisions, was 18% between 1991 and 1994; dropped
to 7% between 1995 and 2004; and increased to 16%

between 2005 and 2013. Of 606 grants between 1991
and 2013, 146 (24%) were reversed by the parole board
for reasons including negative behavior during incarceration and the acquisition of a new sentence for an
additional crime.

Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates in Missouri, 1991-2013
300

200

150

Denied parole

31%

24%

11%

15%

11%

17%

19%

13%

10%

15%

12%
2%

10%

17%

Grant rate

Granted parole

1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

19%

14%

100

22%

Number of hearings

250

*Note: These figures exclude individuals sentenced to “life with no parole for fifty years” or life without parole unless they
were resentenced to life with the possibility of parole. Grant rate is net of reversals.
1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 Missouri 79th General Assembly, 1st Regular Session and 1st Extraordinary Session 7-740, p. 720.
3 Missouri 82nd General Assembly, 1st Regular Session 7-980, p. 926.
4 Modifies Provisions Related to First Degree Murder, S. 590, 98th Gen.
Assem., 2nd Reg. Sess. (Mo. 2016).
5 Missouri SB 590 (2016).
6 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections. (1995,
May). State legislative actions on truth in sentencing: A review of law and
legislation in the context of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement
Act of 1994 (LIS, Inc., Comp.). Retrieved from http://static.nicic.gov/

Library/012259.pdf. People with dangerous felony convictions may
also be considered for release when they reach age 70 and have served
40% of their time and elderly individuals in need of full-time care may
be eligible for medical parole.
7 Personal correspondence with Missouri Department of Corrections
8 Personal correspondence with Missouri Department of Corrections
9 Mo. Stat. § 217.692

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Montana
KEY FINDINGS
•

Life-sentenced individuals convicted of crimes since 1997 must serve 30 years before becoming eligible for parole.

•

Among paroled lifers with deliberate homicide convictions, time served increased from 15.1 years for
the eight individuals released in the 1980s to 25.3 years for the four released between 2003 and 2013.

•

Between 1991 and 2013, the state has conducted an average of four lifer parole hearings annually.
Grant rates over this period have ranged from 0% to 44% in any given year, averaging 14% throughout
this period.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
The 44 individuals with parole-eligible life sentences
in Montana constituted 1.8% of the state’s prison
population in 2012.1 Life sentences with parole are
allowable for “deliberate homicide,” an offense category that is similar to first- and second-degree murder
in other states.2

Life-sentenced individuals convicted of crimes on or
after January 31st, 1997, must serve 30 years before
becoming eligible for parole.3
The Montana Board of Pardons and Paroles is composed of seven part-time members, all of whom the
governor appoints.4

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with Deliberate Homicide Convictions in Montana, 1980-2013
29.5

18.5

8.8
11.1

17.8

19.9

18.3
16.2

16.2

Years

22.6

30.4

10
5

1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Number of Paroled Lifers with Deliberate Homicide Convictions in Montana, 1980-2013
1

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES

A total of 16 lifers with deliberate homicide convictions
were granted parole between 1980 and 2013. Average
time served for these individuals increased from 15.1
years for the eight released in the 1980s, to 18.9 years
for the four released in the 1990s, to 25.3 years for the
four released between 2003 and 2013.

Between 1991 and 2013, the state has conducted an
average of four lifer parole hearings annually. Grant
rates over this period have ranged from 0% to 44% in
any given year, averaging 14% throughout this period.

Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates in Montana, 1991-2013
10
9
8

6
5
44%

20%

25%

2013

2011

Grant Rate

Granted parole

2012

2010

2008

2009

2007

2006

2001

2005

2000

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 Mon. Code Ann. § 45-5-102: “Deliberate homicide. (1) A person commits
the offense of deliberate homicide if: (a) the person purposely or knowingly causes the death of another human being; (b) the person attempts
to commit, commits, or is legally accountable for the attempt or commission of robbery, sexual intercourse without consent, arson, burglary,
kidnapping, aggravated kidnapping, felonious escape, assault with a
weapon, aggravated assault, or any other forcible felony and in the

2003

1999

33%
0%

1998

2002

1997

1995

1996

1994

1993

1992

1991

17%

33%

Denied parole

40%

2004

Number of hearings

course of the forcible felony or flight thereafter, the person or any person
legally accountable for the crime causes the death of another human
being; or (c) the person purposely or knowingly causes the death of a
fetus of another with knowledge that the woman is pregnant.”
3 Montana Department of Corrections. (n.d.). 2015 biennial report to the
people of Montana. Retrieved from https://cor.mt.gov/Portals/104/
Resources/Reports/2015BiennialReport.pdf
4 Montana Department of Corrections, n.d.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Nebraska
KEY FINDINGS
•

Average time served for paroled lifers with first- or second-degree homicide convictions has increased
slightly from 15.9 years in the 1980s to 18.4 years between 2010 and 2013.

•

Between 2000 and 2009, the state paroled fewer lifers with first- or second-degree homicide convictions than it had in the previous two decades. This level has increased during the period between 2010
and 2013.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
The 95 individuals with parole-eligible life sentences
in Nebraska constituted 2% of the state’s prison population in 2012.1 Life sentences can be applied to those
convicted of Class 1A and 1B felonies. First-degree
and second-degree homicides fall under these categories.

serve six-year terms. Only one of the five members
must have a professional background in corrections.2
In 2014, the legislature held hearings to learn more
about reported pressure by Governor Dave Heineman’s
administration since 2008 to increase parole rates to
ease prison overcrowding.3

The Nebraska parole board is composed of five fulltime members who are appointed by the governor and

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with First-or Second-Degree Homicide Convictions in Nebraska,
1980-2013
35
30

Years

25
20
15
10
5
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Number of Paroled Lifers with First-or Second-Degree Homicide Convictions in Nebraska, 1980-2013

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED
Between 2000 and 2009, the state paroled fewer lifers
with first- or second-degree homicide convictions than
it had in the previous two decades. Nineteen such
individuals were paroled in the 1980s, 25 were paroled
in the 1990s, and only nine such individuals were
paroled between 2000 and 2009. During the period
between 2010 and 2013, nine such lifers were paroled.
Time served for paroled lifers with first- or second-degree homicide convictions has increased since the
1980s. The average time served among those paroled
in the 1980s was 15.9 years. Time served fell to 14.9
years for those paroled in the 1990s. It then increased
to 16.0 years for those paroled between 2000 and 2009
and increased further to 18.4 years for those paroled
between 2010 and 2013.

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES
Data were not provided on lifer parole hearing outcomes.

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.3 Winter, D. (2014, November 25). Nebraska parole chair: ‘I felt pressured’
to parole more prisoners [Newsgroup post]. Retrieved from http://
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://senwatchdog.org/185015/parole-board/
tencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 Nebraska Board of Parole. (2016, September). Nebraska Board of Parole
rules. Retrieved from https://parole.nebraska.gov/rules

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

New Jersey
KEY FINDINGS
•

People currently sentenced to life become parole-eligible after serving any judicial or statutory mandatory-minimum term, or 25 years when no minimum term applies.

•

In 2013, the only year for which data were provided, ten lifers were released and their average time
served was 31.7 years. Among the seven with murder convictions, average time served was 34.1
years.

•

Between 1985 and 2013, the state conducted an average of 92 parole hearings per year for lifers with
murder convictions. The parole grant rate fell dramatically during this period, from 42% in the late
1980s to 31% in the 1990s and 2000s, to 12% between 2010 and 2013.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
New Jersey prisons held 1,096 individuals with parole-eligible life sentences in 2012, constituting 4.6%
of the state’s prison population.1 People currently
sentenced to life become parole-eligible after serving
any judicial or statutory mandatory-minimum term, or
25 years when no minimum term applies.2 The majority (88%) of lifers in New Jersey have been convicted
of a homicide.

15 acting members at any given time.3 An experimental 1999 study found that conviction offense was the
most influential factor in simulated parole decisions
in New Jersey.4 This result appeared to conflict with
the provisions under the New Jersey Parole Act of
1979, whereby crime of conviction is listed as a factor
that is not supposed to influence parole board decisions since “punishment for the crime was to be meted
out by the judiciary at the time of sentencing and not
taken into account by the board.”5

The New Jersey Parole Board has 18 members, with

Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates for Individuals with Murder Convictions in New Jersey, 1985-2013
200
180

140
120

11%

Grant rate
8%

20%

11%

27%

26%

28%

30%

32%

36%

29%

Denied parole

37%

49%
22%

27%

32%

30%

32%

28%

25%

50%
16%

49%

46%

66%

33%

40%

100

Granted parole

2011
2012
2013

2010

2009

2007
2008

2006

2004
2005

2003

2001
2002

1999
2000

1998

1997

1995

1996

1994

1992
1993

1989
1990
1991

1987
1988

0
1985
1986

Number of hearings

160

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED
During 2013, ten lifers were released and the average
time served among them was 31.7 years, with a range
of 17 to 38 years. Among the seven with murder convictions, the average time served was 34.1 years.

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES
New Jersey provided data on parole hearing outcomes
only for lifers with murder convictions. Between 1985
and 2013, the state conducted an average of 92 such
parole hearings annually, ranging between 33 hearings
in 1986 and 174 hearings in 1992. The parole grant
rate has fallen dramatically during this period, from
42% in the late 1980s to 31% in the 1990s and 2000s,
to 12% between 2010 and 2013.

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 See N.J.S. § 2C:11-3, N.J.S. § 2C:14-6, N.J.S. § 2C:43-6, N.J.S. § 2C:437: commutation and work credits shall not in any way reduce any judicial or statutory mandatory minimum term and such credits accrued
shall only be awarded subsequent to the expiration of the term.
3 New Jersey State Parole Board. (2012, February). The parole book: A
handbook on parole procedures for adult and young adult inmates. Retrieved
from http://www.state.nj.us/parole/docs/AdultParoleHandbook.pdf

4 Turpin-Petrinoso, C. (1999). Are limiting enactments effective? An experimental test of decision making in a presumptive parole state. Journal
of Criminal Justice, 27(4), 328-329.
5 Turpin-Petrinoso, 1999, p. 323.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

New York
KEY FINDINGS
•

New York has the country’s second largest population of parole-eligible lifers. Although in 2011 legislators required the parole board to give greater weight to risk assessments in parole decisions—effectively prioritizing rehabilitation over crime severity—the board disregarded these mandates for
several years. After state courts repeatedly chastised and twice held the parole board in contempt
for failing to follow these legislative reforms, the board proposed new regulations in 2016 in order to
comply with the 2011 legislative mandate.

•

People currently receiving life sentences for first-degree murder must serve a minimum of 20 to
25 years before parole-eligibility; those convicted of second-degree murder must serve a minimum of
15 years.

•

The number of lifers with murder convictions paroled annually has increased substantially from 82
individuals in 2004 to 319 in 2013. During this period, average time served for those released increased
from 16.4 to 21.1 years.

•

The overall parole grant rate for lifers has stayed around 25% between 2004 and 2013. The annual
number of lifer parole hearings has decreased slightly during this period, from 1,822 in 2004 to 1,599
in 2013.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
New York has the second-largest population of people
serving parole-eligible life sentences in the country.
The 9,999 individuals serving this sentence comprised
18.4% of the state’s prison population in 2012.1 In 2013,
68% of life-sentenced individuals in the state had been
convicted of second-degree murder.2
People convicted of Class A-I violent felonies (such
as first-degree crimes of murder, attempted murder,
second-degree murder, kidnapping, and arson) must
be sentenced to at least life with the possibility of
parole. Those convicted of first-degree murder, as well
as one category of second-degree murder and some
other categories of crimes may, or in some cases must,
be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.3
New York’s parole-eligible lifer population also includes
people convicted of non-violent A-I felonies and A-II
drug felonies—including some who were not resentenced after reforms to the Rockefeller Drug Laws—as

well as other drug offenses and those deemed to be
“persistent felony offenders.”4
Parole-eligible lifers convicted of first-degree murder
must serve a minimum of 20 to 25 years before parole-eligibility.5 Those convicted of specified subdivisions of attempted murder in the first degree or attempted aggravated murder must serve a minimum
sentence of 20 to 40 years before parole eligibility, as
set by the court. Parole-eligible lifers convicted of other
Class A-I violent felonies must serve a minimum of 15
years before becoming eligible for parole. Lifers are
not eligible to earn good time allowance and, with the
exception of those sentenced under the old Rockefeller Drug Laws, are prohibited from earning merit time.6
In 2011, the Legislature enacted a new parole statute
requiring the board to:7

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

According to Philip Genty, these changes sought to
“shift the primary focus of Parole Board decisionmaking away from the static factors of criminal history
and seriousness of the crime, to a more dynamic and
nuanced set of risk-assessment ‘procedures.’”8 But the
board resisted implementing these reforms. In testimony before the Assembly’s Corrections Committee
in 2013, the Correctional Association of New York
stated that the board “denies parole release, often
repeatedly to far too many people, frequently based
on the nature of applicants’ crimes of conviction or
past criminal history while failing to consider people’s
accomplishments, readiness for reentry, or objective
risk.”9 State courts have chastised the board for failing
to follow laws guiding parole decisionmaking, and the
board has twice been held in contempt of court for
ignoring directives to give greater weight to factors
other than the underlying offense and to provide its
reasoning behind parole denials.10
In 2011, the Legislature also directed the parole board
to develop and implement a risk assessment instrument.11 After some delay, the board developed the
COMPAS Reentry Risk Assessment Instrument but it
has not consistently used the instrument or applied
its results to guide its decisions.12
With pressure from the courts, advocates, and the
Governor, the board proposed new regulations in 2016
to comply with the 2011 statutory requirements.13 The
proposed regulation requires that the parole candidate’s risk and needs score guide the board’s release
decision and that the board provide an explanation
when it departs from the risk assessment to deny
parole. The regulation would also require the board to
consider the reduced culpability and demonstrated
maturity of lifers who committed their crimes under
age 18.14

New York’s parole board consists of up to 19 members15
and is currently composed of fourteen members, all
of whom are appointed by the governor and confirmed
by the Senate. Members serve a six-year term. Robert
Dennison, a former parole board chairman and commissioner, spoke with the media about an unwritten
rule: “If you let someone out and it’s going to draw
media attention, you’re not going to be re-appointed.”16
Thomas Grant, another former parole board commissioner who shares this view, has recommended instating a one-term limitation for parole board commissioners to eliminate their incentive to depart from the
statute to maintain low parole rates and improve odds
of reappointment.17 In January 2016, nearly all members
of the parole board had been appointed or reappointed by Governor Andrew Cuomo.18

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with First- Or SecondDegree Homicide Convictions in New York, 2004-2013
25

20
Years

establish written procedures for its use in making
parole decisions as required by law. Such written
procedures shall incorporate risk and needs principles to measure the rehabilitation of persons
appearing before the board, the likelihood of
success of such persons upon release, and assist
members of the state board of parole in determining which inmates may be released to parole supervision.

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

2011

2012

2013

Number of Paroled Lifers with First- Or SecondDegree Homicide Convictions in New York, 2004-2013
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

146

230

213

215

288

262

336

319

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES

The number of lifers paroled annually with first- or
second-degree murder convictions quadrupled between
2004 and 2012, increasing from 82 to 336 individuals,
and dropped slightly to 319 in 2013. Given that these
data begin in 2004, during a gubernatorial administration that was averse to granting parole to people with
violent convictions as described in the subsequent
section, it is unclear how the more recent elevated
levels of releases compare with earlier periods. The
backlog created by this reluctance to grant parole likely
contributed to the increase in average time served
among those who were paroled: from 16.4 years in
2004 to 21.2 years in 2013, hitting a peak of 22.4 years
in 2007.

The annual number of parole hearings for all lifers has
decreased slightly between 2004 and 2014. An average
of 1,877 hearings were conducted each year between
2004 and 2008. That annual average number of hearings fell to 1,698 between 2009 and 2013. An annual
average of 325 scheduled hearings (15%) were postponed (until later that year or a subsequent year), and
were therefore omitted from the grant rate calculations
below.

These figures do not reflect the time served by individuals who remain incarcerated or who have died in
prison. This group includes John MacKenzie, who was
sentenced in 1975 to 25 years to life for killing a police
officer after a burglary.21 Despite evidence of rehabilitation, a notable record of accomplishments, and
support letters from prison guards, judges, clergy
members, and prosecutors, MacKenzie was denied
parole for the tenth time in 2016. Days later, he killed
himself in prison. At age 70, he had spent over 40 years
incarcerated.

The parole grant rate has hovered around 25% between
2004 and 2013, with a drop to 19% in 2008.19
Given that these data begin in the final years of Governor George Pataki’s administration (January, 1995 –
December, 2006), this level of parole grants may represent a significant reduction from earlier years.
Governor Pataki’s goal was reportedly to “make sure
. . . that people convicted of violent crimes serve the
longest possible sentences.”20

Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates in New York, 2004-2013
2500

1500
Denied parole

Grant rate
27%

28%

24%

22%

21%

19%

26%

25%

500

26%

1000
29%

Number of hearings

2000

Granted parole
2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
1 Only California has a larger population of parole-eligible lifers. Nellis,
A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 The remaining lifers were convicted of aggravated assault, robbery, or
kidnapping (12.7%), property offense (7.3%), first-degree murder (3.6%),
other murder (1.5%), sex offense (3.0%), drug offense (1.4%), or other
offenses (2.6%).
3 See N. Y. Penal Law § 70.00(5).
4 Correspondence with Alan Rosenthal; See N. Y. Penal Law § 70.00(5);
N.Y. Penal Law § 70.40(1).
5 N. Y. Penal Law § 70.00
6 New York Department of Corrections and Community Supervision.
(2010, November). New York State parole handbook: Questions and answers
concerning parole release and supervision. Retrieved from http://www.
doccs.ny.gov/Parole_Handbook.html
7 N.Y. Executive Law § 259-c(4)
8 Hearings before the N.Y.S. Assembly’s Standing Committee on Correction,
2013 Leg. (N.Y.) (testimony of Philip M. Genty, Professor, Columbia Law
School.)
9 Hearings before the N.Y.S. Assembly’s Standing Committee on Correction,
2013 Leg. (N.Y.) (testimony of Scott Paltrowitz, Prison Vision Project.)
Retrieved from http://www.correctionalassociation.org/wp-content/
uploads/2013/12/CA-Parole-Testimony-12-4-13-Hearing-FINAL.pdf
10 Bedell, B. (2015, June 1). Parole board held in contempt for failure to
explain denial. New York Law Journal. Retrieved from http://www.
newyorklawjournal.com/id=1202727884570/Parole-Board-Held-inContempt-for-Failure-to-Explain-Denial?slreturn=20160820120842;
Stashenko, J. (2016, June 1). Judge finds parole board in contempt for
ignoring order. New York Law Journal. Retrieved from http://www.
newyorklawjournal.com/this-weeks-news/id=1202758944784/JudgeFinds-Parole-Board-in-Contempt-for-Ignoring-Order?mcode=1202615036097&curindex=38
11 N. Y. Correction Law § 112(4)
12 Correspondence with Alan Rosenthal.
13 Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. (2016, September). Rule making activities: Parole board decision making (I.D. No.
CCS-39-16-00004-P) (NYS Register). Retrieved from http://docs.dos.
ny.gov/info/register/2016/sept28/pdf/rulemaking.pdf
14 Governor Cuomo announces proposal of new regulations to ensure
consideration of risk and rehabilitation during parole decisions [Newsgroup post]. (2016, October 18). Retrieved from New York Office of the
Governor website: https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-proposal-new-regulations-ensure-consideration-risk-and-rehabilitation. For the case motivating this reform, see
Hawkins v. DOCCS 140 A.D.3d 34 (3rd Dept. 2016).

15 New York State Corrections and Community Supervision. (2015, June).
Board of Parole (No. 8600). Retrieved from http://www.doccs.ny.gov/
pdf/Board-of-Parole-Directive.pdf
16 Hughes, B. (2014, September 17). Even model NYS inmates face step
barriers to parole [Newsgroup post]. Retrieved from http://citylimits.
org/2014/09/17/even-model-nys-inmates-face-steep-barriers-to-parole/;
see also the history of Kathy Boudin’s release and former commissioners S. Earl Eichelberger and Henri C. Raffalli’s remarks: Caher, J. (2016,
January 31). Dismantling parole: Parole release rates plunge under
Pataki’s tough policy. New York Law Journal. Retrieved from http://
prisonaction.blogspot.com/2006/03/dismantling-parole-john-caher-01-31.html.
17 Schwartzapfel, B. (2015, July 11). How parole boards keep prisoners
in the dark and behind bars. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://
www.washingtonpost.com/national/the-power-and-politics-of-paroleboards/2015/07/10/49c1844e-1f71-11e5-84d5-eb37ee8eaa61_story.
html; Re-thinking Reentry. (2010). “The ones with life after their name”:
An interview with former New York State Parole Board member, Tom
Grant [Blog post]. Retrieved from http://rethinkingreentry.blogspot.
com/2010/10/ones-with-life-after-their-name.html
18 The Editorial Board (2016, January 15). Gov. Cuomo’s push on justice
reform. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.
com/2016/01/16/opinion/gov-cuomos-push-on-justice-reform.html?_
r=0
19 Alan Rosenthal and Patricia Warth estimated that in fiscal year 2009,
the parole grant rate for lifers with A-1 violent felonies (of which there
were over 9,100 people), was 8% at initial hearings and 13% at subsequent hearings. See Rosenthal, A., & Warth, P. (2011, September).
NYSACDL supports call for parole reform. Retrieved from Center for
Community Alternatives website: http://www.communityalternatives.
org/pdf/ATTICUS-ParoleReform.pdf.
20 Caher, 2016
21 The Editorial Board (2016, June 13). A challenge to New York’s
broken parole board. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.
nytimes.com/2016/06/13/
opinion/a-challenge-to-new-yorks-broken-parole-board.html?_r=1;
Wegman, J. (2016, September 6). False hope and a needless death
behind bars. New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.
com/2016/09/06/opinion/false-hope-and-a-needless-death-behindbars.html

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

North Dakota
KEY FINDINGS

•

North Dakota has a small number of parole-eligible lifers, and the state granted parole to two such
individuals between 2003 and 2014. Time served averaged 24.0 years for these two individuals who
both had murder convictions. One was released in 2005, and the other was expected to be released
in 2016.

•

Between 2003 and 2014, the North Dakota parole board reviewed six people with life sentences for
possible parole release. Two of these six were granted parole.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS

Time Served for All Paroled Lifers in North Dakota,
2003-2016 (Expected)
30

The 38 individuals serving parole-eligible life sentences in North Dakota represented 2.5% of the state’s
prison population in 2012.1

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED
The state granted parole to two people with parole-eligible life sentences between 2003 and 2014. An individual paroled in 2005 had served 23.1 years upon
being released, which occurred 1.5 months after his/
her parole hearing. The second individual, who was
expected to be released in November 2016, would have
served 25.0 years and waited 2.5 years after his parole
hearing to be released. There was a small (8%) increase
in the length of time served between these releases.
Both individuals had murder convictions.4
1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 N.D. Cent. Code §12.1-32

23.1

20
Years

Class AA felonies are the most serious criminal offenses and carry a sentence of life imprisonment with
or without parole. Individuals convicted of a Class AA
felony must serve 30 years, minus time reduced for
good behavior, before they can become parole-eligible.2
In 1995, North Dakota enacted truth-in-sentencing
laws requiring individuals convicted of violent offenses to serve 85% of their sentence before they could
become parole-eligible.3 Those sentenced to life imprisonment must serve 85% of their remaining life
expectancy on the date of sentencing.

25.0

No releases
2003 2004 2005 2006

2007 2008

2009

2010

2011 2012

2013

2014 2015 2016

Number of Paroled Lifers in North Dakota, 20032016 (Expected)
2003

2004

2005

2006-2016
1

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES
Between 2003 and 2014, the North Dakota parole board
reviewed six people with life sentences for possible
parole release. Two of these six were granted parole.
Grant rate analysis is not possible since the state did
not provide data on annual hearing outcomes.

3 N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-32-09.1
4 North Dakota does not distinguish between first- and second-degree
murder. See: N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-16-01.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Ohio
KEY FINDINGS
•

Ohio law requires lifers convicted of murder after 1996 to serve 15 years before becoming parole-eligible and those convicted of aggravated murder to serve a minimum of 20 years. Courts may also
further postpone parole eligibility by setting minimum time served at 25 or 30 years.

•

Between 1998 and 2014, time served increased somewhat for paroled lifers with murder convictions
(from 18.1 to 21.2 years) and increased significantly for those with aggravated murder convictions
(from 20.2 to 30.3 years).

•

The number of paroled lifers with murder and aggravated murder convictions fell dramatically beginning in 2010. Between 2010 and 2014, an average of 34 such individuals were paroled annually, compared to 113 annually in the five previous years.

•

The state’s lifer parole grant rate was 5% in 2014.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
The 5,667 individuals serving parole-eligible life sentences in Ohio accounted for 11.1% of the state’s prison
population in 2012.1 In 1996, Ohio abolished parole
except for those convicted of murder and aggravated
murder.2 Individuals serving a life sentence for a murder

committed on or after July 1, 1996, are parole-eligible
after serving 15 years, while those convicted of aggravated murder on or after July 1, 1996, are parole-eligible after serving 20 years—unless the court specifies
that parole eligibility is to be after 25 years or 30 years.3

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with Murder and Aggravated Murder Convictions in Ohio, 1998-2014
35
Aggravated murder

Years

Murder

20
15
10
5

2012

2013

2014

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

110

2010

2011

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

Number of Paroled Lifers with Murder Convictions in Ohio, 1998-2014
Aggravated Murder
Murder

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
There has been a significant drop in the state’s overall
parole rate over the last decade.4 State authorities
claim that this has occurred because in the years since
parole was abolished, all the individuals sentenced
prior to 1996 who were most eligible for discretionary
parole were likely to have already been released. The
state was reportedly testing new risk assessment tools
to help effectively increase parole rates.5

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED6
The number of paroled lifers with murder and aggravated murder convictions increased from 29 in 1998
to 160 in 2004. Between 2005 and 2009, an average
of 113 such individuals were paroled annually. Between
2010 and 2014, this annual average fell to 34.
Between 1998 and 2014, time served increased by 17%
for paroled lifers with murder convictions: from 18.1
to 21.2 years. During this period, time served increased
by 51% for paroled lifers with aggravated murder convictions: from 20.2 to 30.3 years. Given that average
time served was anomalously high for this second
group in 2014, it may be more informative to examine
trends between 1998 and 2013: during this period,
time served increased by 30% for paroled lifers with
aggravated murder convictions: from 20.2 to 26.3
years.

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2967.13
3 Ohio Admin. Code § 5120-2-10. People serving a life sentence for
first-degree murder or aggravated murder committed prior to October
19,1981 are parole-eligible after serving 15 years, while those serving
a life sentence for an offense other than first-degree murder or aggravated murder committed prior to October 19, 1981 are eligible after
serving 10 years.

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES
In 2014, the only full year for which data were provided, the state granted parole in 25 of 535 lifer parole
hearings, resulting in a grant rate of 5%.

Ohio Parole Hearing Outcomes for Life-Maximum
Sentences, 2014
Grant rate
5%

Denial rate
95%
Number of hearings: 535

4 Unknown. (2012, June 28). Changes may help more state prisoners
get parole. Dayton Daily News. Retrieved from http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/crime-law/changes-may-help-more-state-prisoners-get-parole/nPgwm/
5 Prison breakthrough: Big data can help states decide whom to release
from prison. (2014, April 19). The Economist. Retrieved from http://
www.economist.com/news/united-states/21601009-big-data-can-helpstates-decide-whom-release-prison-prison-breakthrough
6 Time served data retrieved from Time Served Reports from calendar
years 1998 to 2014 available at http://www.drc.ohio.gov/reports/timeserved

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Oregon
KEY FINDINGS
•

•

Between 2012 and 2014, the only years for which data were provided, average time served for paroled
lifers with murder convictions was 26 years.

•

Between 2012 and 2014, Oregon conducted an average of 35 lifer parole hearings annually. The state
granted parole in 40 of the 105 total hearings conducted during this period, resulting in an overall
grant rate of 38%.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED

Oregon’s 627 parole-eligible lifers constituted 4.4% of
the state’s prison population. Virtually all lifers in 2012
(99%) had been convicted of murder.1

Between 2012 and 2014, average time served for
paroled lifers with first- or second-degree murder convictions remained stable, hovering around 26 years.
The annual number of releases during this period
ranged between nine and 20.

Subsequent parole hearings can be scheduled no
earlier than two years and no later than 10 years after
the date of a denial.5
Oregon law states that rehabilitation must be the only
consideration during parole review: “The sole issue is
whether or not the prisoner is likely to be rehabilitated
within a reasonable period of time.”6

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with Murder
Convictions in Oregon, 2012-2014
30
25

26.1

25.9

25.1

2012

2013

2014

20
Years

Current law requires that individuals 15 years of age
and older who committed murder on or after June 30,
1995 be sentenced to life imprisonment and to serve
a minimum of 25 years before becoming parole-eligible.2 Life-sentenced individuals convicted of aggravated murder in adult court who are at least 15 years of
age must be confined for a minimum of 30 years before
parole eligibility, unless they are sentenced to life
without the possibility of parole.3 Those 18 and older
also face the death penalty, and those under the age
of 15 (if waived into adult court) must serve at least
30 years before becoming parole-eligible.4

15
10
5
0

Number of Paroled Lifers with Murder Convictions
in Oregon, 2012-2014
2012

2013

2014

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES
Between 2012 and 2014, Oregon conducted an average
of 35 lifer parole hearings each year. It granted parole
in 40 of the 105 total hearings conducted during this
period, resulting in an overall grant rate of 38%.

Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates in
Oregon, 2012-2014
40

Denied parole

27%

51%

33%

Number of hearings

Grant rate

8
Granted parole

2012

2013

2014

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.115. Also, those sentenced to life imprisonment
for murder of a pregnant victim committed on or after January 1, 2010
must serve a minimum of 30 years before being eligible for parole. Or.
Rev. Stat. § 163.155(5)
3 Or. Rev. Stat. § 161.620; Correspondence with Bobbin Singh. These

4
5
6
7

statutes have not been amended since the Supreme Court’s Miller v.
Alabama and Montgomery v. Louisiana decisions.
Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.105(1)(c); O.A.R. § 255-032-0010(2); Or. Rev. Stat.
§ 163.105(1)(a); Or. Rev. Stat. § 137.707.
ORS 161.620 (1999)
Or. Admin. R. § 255-032-0035
Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.105

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Rhode Island
KEY FINDINGS

•

Rhode Island has gradually increased minimum sentences before parole eligibility for lifers convicted
of first- or second-degree murder, from 15 years for those convicted after 1989 to 25 years for those
convicted after 2015.

•

On average, two lifers with murder convictions were paroled each year between 2004 and 2012.

•

Between 2004 and 2012, average time served for released lifers with first-degree murder convictions
has ranged between 9.0 and 32.7 years, averaging 20.6 years between 2008 and 2012. Time served
for released lifers with second-degree murder convictions has ranged between 18.4 and 26.2 years
during this period, averaging 18.8 years between 2007 and 2012.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with Murder Convictions in Rhode Island, 2004-2012
35

The 175 individuals serving sentences of life with the
possibility of parole in Rhode Island represented 7.2%
of the state’s prison population in 2012.1

On average, two lifers with murder convictions were
paroled each year between 2004 and 2012. For those
with first-degree murder convictions, time served
jumped from 9.0 years for the individual released in
2004 to 32.7 years for the one released in 2006. It then
averaged 20.6 years for the 16 who were paroled
between 2008 and 2012.
For those with second-degree murder convictions,
time served has fallen from a peak of 26.2 years for

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

2010

2011

2012

2011

2012

Number of Paroled Lifers with Murder Convictions
in Rhode Island, 2004-2012
2010

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED

2009

Those convicted after July 1, 2015, are eligible after
serving a minimum of 25 years.

2008

•

2007

Those convicted after June 30, 1995, are eligible
after serving a minimum of 20 years

Second-degree murder

2006

•

2005

Those convicted after July 10, 1989, are eligible
after serving a minimum of 15 years

First-degree murder

2004

•

25
Years

Individuals serving life sentences for first- or second-degree murder become parole-eligible as follows:2

First-degree murder

Second-degree murder

the individual released in 2005 to an average of 18.8
years for the three released in 2007 and 2009.

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES
Data were not provided on lifer parole hearing outcomes.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

South Carolina
KEY FINDINGS
•

Among the state’s 1,042 parole-eligible lifers in 2016, 62% were required to serve 20 years before
becoming eligible for parole consideration, 27% were required to serve 10 years, and 11% had to serve
30 years.

•

Between 1980 and 2013, average time served for paroled lifers increased from 12 to 28 years for those
with murder convictions and increased from 10 to 26 years for those with non-murder convictions.

•

The total number of paroled lifers fell from 74 in the 1980s to 17 in the 1990s. It then increased to 249
in the 2000s. Between 2010 and 2013, 59 such individuals were paroled.

•

While the state’s lifer parole grant rate averaged 10% in the 1980s, it dropped to 1% in the 1990s and
then climbed to 5% in the 2000s. Between 2010 and 2013, the lifer parole grant rate was 3%. The
number of lifer parole hearings increased significantly during this period.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
South Carolina prisons held 1,042 individuals with
parole-eligible life sentences in 2016, constituting 4.9%
of the state’s prison population.1 In addition, a significant number of people were serving parole-ineligible
life sentences or had sentences that exceeded 30
years.
Among parole-eligible lifers, 62% were required to serve
20 years before becoming eligible for parole consideration, 27% were required to serve 10 years, and 11%
had to serve 30 years.2 Since 2010, the state legislature
has mandated that people convicted of murder would
be sentenced to a minimum of 30 years without the
possibility of parole.3
In 2013, the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled that
retroactive application of a law increasing the required
number of votes from the parole board for a parole
grant constituted an ex post facto violation.4
The South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole,
and Pardon Services website explains that while
victims “or anyone opposing parole” can attend hear-

ings in person, the parole board communicates with
incarcerated individuals and their family member and
supporters via videoconferencing.5

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED
Between 1980 and 2013, time served increased dramatically for paroled lifers. For those paroled with
murder convictions, average time served increased
from 12 to 28 years during this period.6 For those with
non-murder convictions, it increased from 10 to 26
years.
The number of paroled lifers has varied significantly
across these decades. In the 1980s, a total of 74 lifers
were paroled. Throughout the 1990s, only 17 were
paroled. In the 2000s, 249 lifers were paroled. Between
2010 and 2013, 59 such individuals were paroled.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
Time Served for Paroled Lifers in South Carolina, 1980-2013
35
Murder

Years

25
20
15
Other

10
5

1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Other

1981

Murder

1980

Number of Paroled Lifers in South Carolina, 1980-2013

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES
The drop in the number of paroled lifers in the 1990s
and the subsequent increase in the 2000s were driven
largely by changes in the number of hearings and
parole grant rates. In 2000, the total number of lifer
hearings increased to 591, from 241 in the previous
year, and it averaged 480 until 2013.
The lifer parole grant rate averaged 10% in the 1980s—
reaching as high as 42% in 1980. The average grant
rate dropped to 1% in the 1990s—with no lifers paroled
in 1990, 1997, and 1998. The grant rate then climbed
to 5% in the 2000s. Between 2010 and 2013, the grant
rate was 3%.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates in South Carolina, 1980-2013
600

Number of hearings

500

400

300

200

10%

13%

17%

Grant rate
Granted parole

1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013

31%

42%

10%

100

10%

Denied parole

1 South Carolina Department of Corrections. (2016, August). Sentence
length distribution of total inmate population as of June 30, fiscal years
2012 - 2016. Retrieved from http://www.doc.sc.gov/pubweb/research/
InmatePopulationStatsTrend/ASOFTrendSentenceLengthDistributionFY12-16.pdf
2 South Caroline Department of Corrections, 2016
3 S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3; Omnibus Crime Reduction and Sentencing
Reform Act, S. 1154, 118th Gen. Assem. (S.C. 2010). Retrieved from
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=1154&session=118&summary=B

4 Barton v. South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole, and Pardon
Services. 404 S.C. 395, 745 S.E.2d 110 (2013).
5 South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services.
(2015). Parole hearing explanation. Retrieved October 25, 2016, from
http://www.dppps.sc.gov/Victim-Services/Parole-Hearing-Explanation
6 “Murder” in South Carolina is comparable to first-degree murder in other
states.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Texas
KEY FINDINGS
•

Texas ranks third in the nation in the size of its parole-eligible lifer population. In 1993, the state increased its statutory minimum sentence before parole eligibility for lifers with capital felony convictions
to 40 years; since 2005, adults with these convictions have been ineligible for parole. Also since 1993,
lifers with non-capital murder convictions and several other convictions must serve a minimum of 30
years before becoming eligible for parole consideration. Since 1995, adults serving life sentences for
aggravated sexual crimes must serve 35 years before becoming parole-eligible.

•

The average length of time served for paroled lifers with murder convictions increased from 21 to 26
years between 2003 and 2013.

•

The number of paroled lifers with murder convictions has gradually increased from 30 in 2003 to 74
in 2013. No lifers were paroled in 2005 and a high of 97 were paroled in 2012.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
Texas ranks third in the nation in the size of its parole-eligible lifer population, with 8,493 individuals
serving this sentence in 2012—5.6% of the state’s
prison population.1 Just over half (55%) were convicted of murder, another 23% were convicted of a sex
offense, and 15% were convicted of either aggravated
assault, robbery, or kidnapping. The remainder were
convicted of a drug offense (2%), a property offense
(3%), or other crime (2%).
The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure determines the
minimum amount of time that must be served before
lifers are eligible to apply for parole, based on the
offense type and date. These requirements include:
•

•

For those with capital felony convictions, including
capital murder, the minimum sentence before
parole eligibility increased to 40 years in 1993;
since 2005, adults with these convictions have
been ineligible for parole.2 Individuals convicted
of capital murder as juveniles become parole-eligible after serving 40 years.3
Lifers convicted of an offense classified as “3(g)”
other than capital murder and aggravated sexual
offenses since 1993 must serve a minimum of 30

years (50% of the life sentence, double the previous
requirement).4 3(g) offenses currently include
murder, burglary, aggravated kidnapping, and the
commitment of any felony offense with a deadly
weapon.5 Lifers convicted of aggravated sexual
offenses since 1995 must serve 35 calendar years
before they become eligible for parole. 6
The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles is composed
of seven members who serve a six-year term. They are
appointed by the governor with the advice and consent
of the Senate.7 Fourteen parole commissioners, hired
by the board, assist in the parole decisionmaking
process. If a person is denied parole, the Board sets
a new review date within one to five years.

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED
The number of paroled lifers with murder convictions
has gradually increased from 30 in 2003 to 74 in 2013.
No lifers were paroled in 2005 and a high of 97 were
paroled in 2012. Average time served for these individuals has ranged from 21 years for those paroled in
2003 to 26 years in 2013.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

LIFER PAROLE HEARING AND
GRANT RATES

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with Murder
Convictions in Texas, 2003-2013
30

Data were not provided on lifer parole hearing outcomes.

Years

20
15
10
5
0

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Note: There were no releases in 2005.

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Number of Paroled Lifers with Murder Convictions
in Texas, 2003-2013

1 Only California and New York have larger parole-eligible lifer populations.
Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf.
2 These are “flat years” and are therefore ineligible for good time credits.
Texas Department of Criminal Justice Parole Division & Texas Board
of Pardons and Parole. (2011). Parole in Texas. Retrieved from https://
www.tdcj.state.tx.us/documents/parole/PIT_English.pdf; Justice for
Veterans Campaign. (2012). Determining your parole eligibility. Retrieved
from http://www.texascjc.org/sites/default/files/jc_files/TCRP,_JFVC_
Determining_Your_Parole_Eligibility_(June_2012).pdf.
3 Chammah, M. (2013, May 13). House panel OKs parole after 40 years
for young murderers [Newsgroup post]. Retrieved from https://www.
texastribune.org/2013/05/13/house-panel-approves-parole-after-40years-17-year/.

4 Tex. Government Code Ann. § 508.145(d)(1). Must be 30 “flat years”
that are therefore ineligible for good time credits. Texas Department
of Criminal Justice Parole Division & Texas Board of Pardons and Parole,
2011.
5 Tex. Criminal Code Ann. § 42.12(3)(g).
6 Tex. Government Code Ann. § 508.145(c).
7 Texas Board of Pardons and Parole. (2014). Annual statistical report FY
2014. Retrieved from http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/bpp/publications/
FY2014%20BPP%20StatisticalReport.pdf.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Utah
KEY FINDINGS
•

With 1,943 individuals serving parole-eligible life sentences in 2012, Utah’s prisons have the highest
proportion of such lifers in the country, at 27.7%. Unlike most states, the majority of lifers in Utah
(62%) have been convicted of a sex offense, while 19% have been convicted of a homicide, and 16%
have been convicted of aggravated assault, robbery, or kidnapping.

•

The Utah Board of Pardons and Parole stands out for its restrictive parole policies and practices. It
can impose “natural life” sentences potentially amounting to a lifelong parole denial without reconsideration. The board also determines when original hearings are held—reportedly not until 22 to 24
years for those with murder convictions. It can also set lengthy waits for subsequent hearings: in one
case, the board required a 28-year wait.

•

After the release of one parole-eligible lifer with a murder conviction in 1993 who had served 9.9 years,
no such lifers were released for another 10 years. Time served among the 14 people released between
2003 and 2015 averaged 25.0 years.

•

Between 1992 and 2014, the parole board conducted an average of three lifer parole hearings each
year for lifers with murder convictions, the only group whose parole outcomes were analyzed. The
grant rate increased during this period, from 13% between 1992 and 1999, to 23% between 2000 and
2009, to 43% between 2000 and 2014.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
Utah prisons have the highest proportion of parole-eligible lifers in the country. The 1,943 individuals with
these sentences in 2012 constituted 27.7% of the
state’s prison population.1 This is due to the state’s
indeterminate sentencing system. Unlike most states,
the majority of lifers in Utah (62%) have been convicted of a sex offense, while 19% have been convicted of
a homicide, and 16% have been convicted of aggravated assault, robbery, or kidnapping.
The Utah Board of Pardons and Parole stands out
compared to other states for its restrictive parole
policies and practices. Between 2008 and 2012, the
board issued 73 “natural life” sentences, which can
amount to lifelong parole denial without reconsideration.2 Individuals who receive a decision of natural
life in prison are eligible for redetermination at ten-year
intervals.3 The increased number of these decisions

in recent years has raised the total number of people
serving natural life sentences to 108. The board can
impose natural life sentences to individuals with any
of the following first-degree felonies: murder, rape,
child kidnapping, aggravated burglary, aggravated
robbery, arson, and possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute near a school.
The parole board also has great latitude in setting
initial and subsequent hearing dates. The Board’s
website states, “In cases where a life has been taken,
the Board will review each case and schedule the
original hearing based upon the unique facts of the
case.”4 In 2012, a Board spokesperson stated that individuals with sex offense convictions, who are commonly sentenced to five years to life, typically come
before the board after serving three years.5 Most individuals convicted of murder, however, serve 22 to 24

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED

years before being eligible for their first hearings. After
a parole denial, those not sentenced to natural life by
the Board may request a redetermination hearing in
five years.6 The Board has in the past set a 28-year
wait for a subsequent hearing.7

Between 1992 and 2015, 15 parole-eligible lifers with
murder convictions were released. Following the
release of an individual in 1993 who had served 9.9
years, no one was released for another 10 years. Time
served among those released between 2003 and 2015
averaged 25.0 years, ranging between 18.3 and 43.3
years.

The parole board has five full-time members and up
to five part-time members who serve on the Board as
needed. The governor appoints Board members who
are then confirmed by the Senate. Board members
serve staggered five-year terms.

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with Murder Convictions in Utah, 1992-2015
45
40

Years

35
30
25
20
15
10

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1992

1993
1994

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Number of Paroled Lifers with Murder Convictions in Utah, 1992-2015

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates for Individuals with Murder Convictions in Utah,
1992-2014
8

Denied parole

4
40%

67%

2014

33%

2011

Granted parole

2013

50%

2010

2012 0%

17%

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004 0%

14%

20%

2003

2002

2001

2000 0%

1999 0%

1998 0%

1997 0%

1996

1995 0%

1994 0%

1992 0%

100%

33%

67%

Grant rate

1993

Number of hearings

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES
For greater comparability with other states, this analysis is narrowed to parole hearing outcomes for lifers
with murder convictions. Between 1992 and 2014, the
parole board conducted an average of three such
hearings each year. The annual grant rate has ranged
from 0% to 100%. When examined across several years,
the grant rate has increased during this period, from
13% between 1992 and 1999, to 23% between 2000
and 2009, to 43% between 2000 and 2014.

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 Adams, B. (2012, October 15). ‘Natural life’ sentence on the rise for
Utah inmates. The Salt Lake Tribune. Retrieved from http://archive.sltrib.
com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/54485777-78/board-prison-inmates-natural.html.csp
3 Redetermination is a process whereby the Department of Corrections
or the incarcerated individual may request that the parole board review
new, material, and significant information, or reconsider a prior decision.
Hamilton, K. N. (2015, April). Sentence TBD: A practical primer on Utah’s

4
5
6
7

indeterminate sentencing structure and the Board of Pardons and Parole.
Powerpoint presented at Utah Law and Justice Center Public Forum,
Salt Lake City, UT. Retrieved from http://www.acluutah.org/about-us/
item/download/39_efd463d723f717dcd0455e2c6b62e55e; see Utah
Admin. Code § R671-316-1
State of Utah Board of Pardons and Parole. (2016). Hearing types.
Retrieved from http://bop.utah.gov/index.php/hearings-top-publicmenu/types
Adams, 2012
Utah Admin. Code § R671-316-1
Adams, 2012; State of Utah v. Todd, 231 UT App (2013)

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Washington
KEY FINDINGS

•

One in nine people in Washington’s prisons—2,000 in total—were serving parole-eligible life sentences in 2012. In 2011, there were 325 parole-eligible lifers with convictions predating 1984, meaning that
they had served at least 28 years in prison.

•

During the 1980s an average of 17 lifers were paroled annually with first- or second- degree murder
convictions. This figure fell to eight annually between 2000 and 2013. Average time served for paroled
lifers with first- and second- degree murder convictions rose steadily from six years in 1980 to 34
years in 2013. This overall increase in time served may be driven in part by the shrinking pool of parole-eligible lifers since the state significantly curbed discretionary parole for offenses committed
after 1984.

•

Between 1980 and 2013, the gap in time served for those paroled with first- and second-degree murder
has not only diminished, it has inverted. In several recent years, the period of time served by paroled
lifers with second-degree murder convictions has exceeded the period of imprisonment of paroled
lifers with first-degree murder convictions.

•

The total number of lifer parole hearings plummeted between 1984 and 2012, from a high of nearly
1000 hearings in 1986 to a low of 20 in 2012. Amidst this dramatic reduction in number of parole
hearings, Washington’s paroling authority has maintained a high parole rate, falling only as low as
65% between 1984 and 2012.

•

In 2013, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Governor could revoke the paroling authority’s grant decisions.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
There were 2,000 individuals with parole-eligible life
sentences in Washington in 2012, constituting 11.7%
of the state’s prison population.1 Eighty-eight percent
of these individuals had sexual assault convictions,
8% were convicted of murder, and 4% were convicted
of aggravated assault, robbery, or kidnapping.2 In addition, a significant number of people were serving
parole-ineligible life sentences—many of whom were
convicted under the state’s pioneering “three strikes”
law3—or de facto life-without-parole sentences.4
With the enactment of the Sentencing Reform Act in
1981, which established the state’s determinate sentencing system, Washington eliminated its official
parole board and replaced it with the Indeterminate
Sentence Review Board (ISRB).5 The ISRB consists of
four members, appointed by the governor, who serve
five-year terms.6 The ISRB has jurisdiction over indi-

viduals with three types of sentences: those who were
sentenced for crimes committed before July 1, 1984
(the implementation date of the Sentencing Reform
Act), those convicted of certain sex offenses committed after September 1, 2001, and those convicted under
the age 18 for certain crimes.7 In 2011, 325 individuals
under the ISRB’s jurisdiction had convictions predating
1984, meaning that they had served at least 28 years
in prison.8
In 2013, the state Supreme Court ruled unanimously
that the governor could revoke the ISRB’s parole
grants.9 The case involved then-Governor Chris
Gregoire’s invocation of a rarely used executive power
to overturn parole granted to an individual convicted
of attacking a police officer with a knife and gun. According to a governor spokeswoman, “no governor had
overruled a parole-board decision in at least 30 years.”10

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED
The number of paroled lifers with first- or seconddegree murder convictions has gradually fallen since
1980. During the 1980s, 17 such individuals were
paroled annually, on average. This figure dropped to
12 in the 1990s and has averaged eight each year
between 2000 and 2013.
Average time served for paroled lifers with first- and
second- degree murder convictions has risen steadily,
from six to 34 years between 1980 and 2013.
As the figure below shows, the gap in time served for
those paroled with first- and second-degree murder
has not only diminished, it has inverted—meaning that
those with the less serious conviction (second-degree

murder) are serving longer sentences than those with
the more serious conviction (first-degree murder.) In
the 1980s and 1990s, average time served was 15
years for lifers paroled with first-degree murder convictions, and 9 years for those with second-degree
murder convictions. Between 2000 and 2013, average
time served was 25 years for those with first-degree
murder convictions, and 27 years for those with second-degree murder convictions.11 In several recent
years, the period of time served by paroled lifers with
second-degree murder convictions has exceeded the
period of imprisonment of paroled lifers with first-degree murder convictions.

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with First- and Second-Degree Murder Convictions in Washington,
1980-2013
50

Second-degree murder

45
40
35

Years

30
25

First-degree murder

20
15
10
5
2010
2011
2012
2013

2009

2008

2007

1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006

1980

1981

1982

1983

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

Number of Paroled Lifers with First- and Second-Degree Murder Convictions in Washington, 1980-2013
Firstdegree
murder

Seconddegree
murder

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates in Washington, 1984-2012

74%

Denied parole

92%

79%

82%

78%

82%

85%

88%

86%

100%

95%

92%

87%

94%

85%

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

95%

1996

1997

74%

75%

1995

88%
1994

80%
1991

1993

75%
1990

83%

93%

65%
1988

1987

1986

91%
1985

1989

Granted
parole

400

200

Grant rate

1992

76%

600

1984

Number of hearings

800

77%

85%

1000

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES
The number of parole hearings for all lifers has dropped
significantly from an annual average of 679 between
1984 and 1989 to 30 between 2000 and 2012. Amidst
this dramatic reduction in number of parole hearings,
Washington’s paroling authority has maintained a high
parole rate, falling only as low as 65% over this 29-year
period.

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 Nellis, 2013
3 The Persistent Offender Accountability Act (POAA) of 1993 mandates
a life-without-parole sentence for individuals convicted of three felony
offenses that are classified as “most serious offenses,” which include
all Class A felonies and certain Class B felonies. Since the passage of
the law, the legislature has expanded the “most serious offenses”
category as well as the definition of “persistent offender.” See Lee, M.
(n.d.). Washington’s Three Strikes Law: Public safety & cost implications
of life without parole. Retrieved from Columbia Legal Services website:
http://www.columbialegal.org/sites/default/files/3Strikes.pdf; Boerner,
D., & Lieb, R. (2001). Sentencing reform in the other Washington. Crime
and Justice, 71-136. Retrieved from: http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/ReportFile/731/Wsipp_Sentencing-Reform-in-the-Other-Washington_Full-Report.pdf
4 Nellis, 2013; Blagg, D., Brown, M., Buchanan, A., Ellis, B., Gee, O., Hewitt,
A., . . . Scott, N. (2015, May). Life without parole sentences in Washington
State. Retrieved from https://lsj.washington.edu/undergraduate/
life-without-parole-sentences-washington-state

5 State of Washington Sentencing Guidelines Commission, The Sentencing Reform Act at Century’s End: An Assessment of Adult Felony
Sentencing Practices in the State of Washington, (Wash. 2000). Retrieved from http://www.cfc.wa.gov/PublicationSentencing/Research/
SentencingReformActReportCenturyEnd.pdf
6 Washington State Department of Corrections. (n.d.). Indeterminate
Sentence Review Board (ISRB) - Board members. Retrieved from http://
doc.wa.gov/corrections/isrb/docs/isrb-board-members.pdf
7 State of Washington Department of Corrections. (2016, March). Indeterminate Sentence Review Board (ISRB) (Policy No. DOC 320.100). Retrieved from http://www.doc.wa.gov/information/policies/files/320100.
pdf
8 Blagg, D. et al., 2015
9 Sullivan, J. (2013, November 7). State Supreme Court: Governor can
cancel parole. The Seattle Times. Retrieved from http://www.seattletimes.com/news/state-supreme-court-governor-can-cancel-parole/
10 Sullivan, 2013
11 Excluding the individual paroled in 2000 that had served 47 years for
second-degree murder, time served for lifers paroled with this offense
between 2000 and 2013 was only 3% lower than for those with first-degree murder convictions.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

West Virginia
KEY FINDINGS
•

Individuals with “Life with Mercy” sentences must serve a minimum of 10 years before becoming
eligible for parole consideration, unless their conviction is for first-degree murder committed after
1994 or they have two prior felony convictions, in which case the minimum sentence is 15 years.

•

The state significantly increased its annual number of parole hearings beginning in 2005. For the
seven prior years, it had conducted an annual average of 12 hearings. Between 2005 and 2013, the
annual average number of hearings increased to 69. The parole grant rate also increased from 5% in
the first period to 17% in the second.

•

Between 1998 and 2005, an average of one lifer was paroled each year. Between 2006 and 2013, 12
lifers were paroled each year, on average. Average time served for these individuals increased from
17.6 years in the first period to 19.4 years in the second.

Time Served for All Paroled Lifers in West Virginia,
1998-2013
30

West Virginia prisons held 359 individuals with parole-eligible life sentences in 2012, constituting 5.1%
of the state’s prison population.1
Years

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2007

2008

2006

2005

2003

2004

2002

2001

1999

2000

2011

2012

2013

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Number of Paroled Lifers in West Virginia,
1998-2013
2000

Under H.B. 4210 (2014), the parole board created new
youth-specific criteria for parole eligibility.

1999

The West Virginia Parole Board consists of nine fulltime members who serve six-year terms. Members are
appointed by the governor and confirmed by the
Senate.3 Representation of both political parties, as
well as a balance of congressional districts, is required.4

1998

People with indeterminate sentences become eligible
for parole consideration after serving the minimum
term of their sentence.2 Those with “Life with Mercy”
sentences must serve a minimum of 10 years unless
they were convicted of first-degree murder after June
9, 1994, or if they have two prior felony convictions, in
which case the minimum sentence is 15 years.

1998

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES

Between 1998 and 2005, one lifer was paroled each
year, on average. Between 2006 and 2013, 12 lifers
were paroled each year, on average. Average time
served for these individuals increased from 17.6 years
in the first period to 19.4 years in the second.

Between 1998 and 2004, the state conducted an
average of 12 lifer parole hearings each year. Between
2005 and 2013, the annual average number of hearings
increased to 69. The parole grant rate was 5% in the
first period and increased to 17% in the second.

Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates in West Virginia, 1998-2013
90
80

60
50
Denied parole

Grant rate

13%

12%

19%

27%
17%

17%

24%

25%

Number of hearings

Granted parole

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 West Virginia Parole Board. (2006, July). Rules of the West Virginia Parole
Board. Retrieved from http://www.paroleboard.wv.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/West%20Virginia%20Parole%20Board%20Procedural%20
Rules.pdf

3 West Virginia Parole Board. (n.d.). General information. Retrieved from
http://www.paroleboard.wv.gov/aboutus/Pages/Brendatestpage.aspx
4 West Virginia Parole Board. (2009, July). West Virginia Parole Board
annual report July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.
paroleboard.wv.gov/SiteCollectionDocuments/55th%20Annual%20
Report%20FY%2008.09.pdf

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Wisconsin
KEY FINDINGS
•

The Wisconsin legislature requires that individuals sentenced to life with the possibility of parole for
crimes committed after 1999 serve at least 20 years before courts can evaluate their eligibility for
extended supervision. This analysis is focused on individuals convicted prior to this date.

•

Between 1989 and 2013, average time served has doubled for paroled lifers with first- or second-degree murder convictions, from 15.2 years to 30.0 years. Time served has more than doubled for the
small number of lifers with non-murder convictions, from 10.6 years for those paroled in the early
1990s to 23.5 years for those paroled in the mid-2000s.

•

Between 1989 and 2013, the average number of lifers with first- or second-degree murder convictions
paroled each year has fluctuated between two and ten.

•

The state increased its annual number of lifer parole hearings from an average of 182 between 1989
and 2002 to 265 from 2003 to 2013. Throughout this period, the parole grant rate has ranged between
0% and 9%. Between 2011 and 2013, it has been between 1% and 2%.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED

Wisconsin prisons held 956 individuals with parole-eligible life sentences in 2012, constituting 4.3% of the
state’s prison population.1 Virtually all of the life-sentenced individuals (99%) were convicted of murder.

Between 1989 and 1994, an average of 10 lifers with
first- or second-degree murder convictions were paroled
each year. Between 1995 and 2003, an average of two
such lifers were paroled each year. This average increased to 10 per year between 2004 and 2010 and
fell to four per year between 2011 and 2013.

The Wisconsin legislature requires lifers to serve at
least 20 years if convicted of crimes committed on or
after December 31, 1999.2 After that period courts can
evaluate the individual’s eligibility for extended supervision.
The parole board in Wisconsin is composed of seven
commissioners and a chair.3 The governor appoints
the chair, and the remaining commissioners are civil
servants. Media reports note that under Governor Scott
Walker, parole grant rates have plummeted for all incarcerated individuals convicted of crimes before the
“truth-in-sentencing” law took effect in 2000, which
eliminated discretionary parole release.4 Governor
Walker authored the state’s truth-in-sentencing legislation when he was in the state Assembly.

Average time served has doubled during this period
for paroled lifers with first- or second-degree murder
convictions: from 15.2 years in 1989 to 30.0 years in
2013.
Time served has also more than doubled for paroled
lifers with non-murder convictions. The two such individuals released in the early 1990s had served an
average of 10.6 years while the two released in the
mid-2000s had served an average of 23.5 years.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
Time Served for Paroled Lifers with First- and Second-Degree Murder Convictions in Wisconsin,
1989-2013
35
30
25

Years

20
15
10

2007

2008

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

Non-Murder

Total

2001

1999

2013

2006

2002
0

2012

2005

2001
1

2011

2004

2000
2

2010

2003

1999
2

2002

1998
4

2000

1997
3

1998
1996
1

1997
1995
3

1996
1994
8

1995
1993
12

1994
1992
16

1993
1991
10

1992
1990
6

1991
5

1990

First- and SecondDegree Murder

1989

2009

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with Non-Murder
Convictions in Wisconsin, 1992-2005
25

23.2 23.8

Years

20
15
10 10.1

11.1

5
0

No releases

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2008

Number of Paroled Lifers in Wisconsin, 1989-2013

11 11

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES
The annual number of lifer parole hearings has increased from an average of 182 between 1989 and
2002 to 265 from 2003 to 2013. Throughout this period,
the parole grant rate ranged between 0% and 9% of
conducted hearings. Between 2011 and 2013, it was
between 1% and 2%. On average, 11 individuals waived
their parole hearings each year (and were therefore
not included in this analysis).

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates in Wisconsin, 1989-2013
350

Number of hearings

300

250

200

150

100

Denied parole

2012

2013

Grant rate
3%

2003

2002

2001

2000

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 Wis. Stat. § 973.014
3 Four commissioner positions were vacant at the time of this writing.
Wisconsin Department of Corrections. (n.d.). Parole commission.
Retrieved October 25, 2016, from http://doc.wi.gov/about/parole-co
mission. See also: Wisconsin Department of Corrections. (2016, January

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

Granted parole

25). State of Wisconsin Parole Commission. Retrieved October 25, 2016,
from http://doc.wi.gov/Documents/WEB/ABOUT/PAROLECOMMISSION/PC%20Org%20Chart%20-%20Current.pdf
4 Hall, D. J. (2014, March 2). Parole plummet under Scott Walker. Wisconsin State Journal. Retrieved from http://host.madison.com/wsj/
news/local/crime_and_courts/paroles-plummet-under-scott-walker/
article_afd603f4-7fec-5cf9-9e07-a336182e834a.html

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES

Wyoming
KEY FINDINGS
•

The Wyoming Board of Parole cannot grant parole to individuals serving life sentences; rather, the
board can recommend a sentence commutation to the governor after the individual has served 10
years and then evaluate parole eligibility if the governor commutes the sentence to a term of years.
Individuals serving life-without-parole sentences may not have their sentences commuted.

•

During fiscal year 2015, the board significantly restricted its commutation policies to reduce the frequency of hearings and to eliminate the in-person participation of lifers.

•

By 2014, the state had paroled 11 individuals who had been sentenced to life since 1980 for murder
convictions. Among those with first-degree murder convictions, average time served increased from
16 years for the two individuals paroled in the 1990s, to 26 years for the seven paroled between 2004
and 2014.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS
Wyoming prisons held 154 individuals with life sentences1 in 2012, constituting 7.8% of the state’s prison
population.2
Since the Wyoming Board of Parole lacks legal authority to grant parole to life-sentenced individuals, “The
distinction between a sentence of life and a sentence
of life without parole is that the governor may commute
a sentence of life to a term of years, while a sentence
of life without parole may not be commuted.”3 For individuals with life sentences, the parole board can only
recommend a sentence commutation to the governor
and then evaluate parole eligibility for individuals
whose sentences have been commuted to a term of
years.4 The governor cannot commute life-without-parole sentences for adults.5
During fiscal year 2015, the board significantly restricted its commutation policies to reduce the frequency
of hearings and to eliminate the in-person participation
of lifers. Whereas previously lifers could begin seeing
the parole board yearly or every other year after serving
10 years, the new policy permits them:
to petition the Board for a commutation once every
5 years. If, after a 3-member panel of the Board

reviews the petition and agrees by majority decision, the petition is forwarded to the full Board of
7 members for a hearing to be held via tele-conference to discuss a possible recommendation
for commutation. 6
The board states that it ended in-person hearings for
these individuals and reduced their frequency of hearings in order to reduce the impact on victims. Before
implementing the new policy, the board granted one
last “courtesy” hearing to individuals who will no longer
see the board with the same regularity as in the past.

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED
By 2014, the state had paroled 11 individuals who had
been sentenced to life since 1980 for murder convictions.
Time served gradually increased for this small group.
The two individuals paroled in the 1990s with first-degree murder convictions served an average of 16 years.
Average time served increased to 26 years for the
seven such lifers paroled between 2004 and 2014.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: STATE PROFILES
Time Served for Paroled Lifers with Murder Convictions in Wyoming, 1994-2014
30
First-degree murder
25

Years

Second-degree murder
15

0
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Note: Figures pertain only to individuals sentenced to life since 1980.

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

Number of Paroled Lifers with Murder Convictions in Wyoming, 1994-2014

First-degree
murder

Second-degree
murder

Note: Figures pertain only to individuals sentenced to life since 1980.

Two individuals were paroled with second-degree
murder convictions in this period. The individual
paroled in 2003 had served 20 years and the second
who was paroled in 2011 had served 26 years.

1 “Life sentences” and “lifers” hereon refers only to life sentences that
are eligible for parole after commutation.
2 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
3 Fetsco, D. M. (2011). Early release from prison in Wyoming: An overview
of parole in Wyoming and elsewhere and an examination of current
and future trends. Wyoming Law Review, 11(1), 99-124. Retrieved from
http://www.uwyo.edu/law/_files/docs/wy%20law%20review/v11%20
n1/fetsco.pdf, 106-107.

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES
Reliable data were not provided on lifer parole hearing
outcomes.

4 Wyoming Board of Parole. (n.d.). 2015 annual report. Retrieved from
https://sites.google.com/a/wyo.gov/bop/about-us/annual-report
5 Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-10-301(c); The only decision a governor can make
to alter adult sentences of life without parole is to pardon.
6 Wyoming Board of Parole, n.d. See also: Wyoming Board of Parole.
(2013, July). Policy and procedure manual. Retrieved from http://www.
justiceacademy.org/iShare/Library-Parole/WY-PBG.pdf

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: FEDERAL PROFILE

Federal
KEY FINDINGS
•

Over the past twenty-five years, average time served has nearly doubled for lifers with murder convictions paroled in the federal system, increasing from 14.6 years in 1990 to 27.4 years in 2015 (based
on three and four releases in these years, respectively). This increase is likely driven in part by the
shrinking pool of parole-eligible lifers since the abolition of parole in this system—in 1987 for those
with federal convictions and in 2000 for those with D.C. Code convictions.

•

On average, United States Parole Commission conducted 71 lifer parole hearings annually between
1990 and 2000. This annual average increased to 178 between 2001 and 2015. This increase was
driven in part by the Commission’s assumption of jurisdiction, beginning in 1998, over individuals
with D.C. Code felony violations.

•

The lifer parole grant rate increased from an average of 5% between 1990 and 2000 to 17% between
2001 and 2015.

OVERVIEW AND POLICY
HIGHLIGHTS

NUMBER PAROLED AND TIME
SERVED

There were 1,362 individuals with parole-eligible life
sentences in federal prisons in 2012, constituting 0.6%
of the prison population.1 Nearly three times as many
people in this system were serving sentences of life
without the possibility of parole.2

Time served has increased dramatically for paroled
lifers with murder convictions, potentially driven in
part by the characteristics of the shrinking pool of
parole-eligible lifers. Beginning at 8.8 years in 1985
and increasing to 14.6 years in 1990, average time
served for this group has remained above 20 years
since 2001 and reached 27.4 years in 2015. The annual
average number of such individuals paroled increased
from two annually between 1990 and 2000, to eight
each year between 2001 and 2015.

The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 eliminated parole
eligibility for people convicted of federal crimes on or
after November 1, 1987.3 Beginning in 1998, the United
States Parole Commission assumed jurisdiction over
parole release decision for individuals incarcerated
for D.C. Code felony violations.4 Those imprisoned for
D.C. Code violations on or after August 5, 2000, are
ineligible for parole.
In 2008, the D.C. District Court ruled that the Parole
Commission’s retroactive application of year 2000
guidelines to individuals convicted of D.C. Code offenses violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the U.S.
Constitution, which prohibits the practice of retroactively increasing sentences.5 With regards to parole
more broadly for individuals with D.C. Code violations,
the Commission has been criticized for requiring completion of programs that are not readily available in
prisons.6

LIFER PAROLE HEARINGS AND
GRANT RATES
The number of lifer parole hearings increased gradually from three in 1980 to 91 in 2000. Between 2001
and 2015, there have been an average of 178 hearings
each year. The parole grant rate has also gradually
increased, from an average of 2% in the 1980s, to 5%
between 1990 and 2000, and finally to 17% between
2001 and 2015.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: FEDERAL PROFILE
Time Served for Paroled Lifers with Murder Convictions in the Federal System, 1980-2015
30
25

Years

20
15
10
5

2014

2012

2010

2008

2006

2004

2002

2000

1998

1996

1994

1992

1990

1988

1986

1984

1982

1980

19801984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Number of Lifers with Murder Convictions Paroled in the Federal System, 1980-2015

Number of Lifer Parole Hearings and Grant Rates in the Federal System, 1980-2015
300

200

150

51%

Number of hearings

250

100

15%

16%

23%

18%
11%

12%

13%

17%

11%

2015

2014

2013

2011

2012

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2000

2002

1999

Grant rate

Granted parole
2003

1998

1997

2001

1996

1991

1995

1990

1994

1989

1993

1988

1987

1992

1986

25%

1984

1985

1983

1982

1981

1980

21%

19%

Denied parole

Note: Because the annual grant rate was calculated using releases rather than parole grants in this case, 2010’s unusually high grant rate likely results
from the timing mismatch between releases in that year associated with the high number of hearings in the previous year.

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

DELAYING A SECOND CHANCE: FEDERAL PROFILE

D.C. CODE VIOLATIONS
Of the 121 lifers paroled with murder convictions
between 1998 and 2015, 11 had D.C. Code violations.
The average time served for these individuals was 26.9
years. While those paroled until 2010 had served about
25 years, the two paroled in 2011 and 2014 had served
36.3 and 32.0 years, respectively.

Time Served for Paroled Lifers with D.C. Code Murder Convictions in Federal Prisons, 1998-2015
40
36.3

32.0

30
25

25.5

25.8

25.9

25.0

24.0

25.3

Years

20
15
10
5

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

Number of Paroled Lifers with D.C. Code Murder Convictions in Federal Prisons, 1998-2015
1998
0

1999
0

2000
0

2001
0

2002
0

2003
2

2004
1

2005
1

2006
0

1 Nellis, A. (2013). Life goes on: The historic rise in life sentences in America.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved from: http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Life-Goes-On.pdf
2 Nellis, 2013
3 United States Parole Commission, History of the Federal Parole System
(2003). Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/
uspc/legacy/2009/10/07/history.pdf
4 United States Parole Commission, 2003. In August 1998, the Parole
Commission assumed jurisdiction over parole grant hearings for those
with D.C. Code felony convictions; in 2000, it also assumed jurisdiction

2007
1

2008
1

2009
0

2010
3

2011
1

2012
0

2013
0

2014
1

2015
0

over supervision and revocation decisions for those with D.C. Code
convictions.
5 Sellmon v. Reilly, 551 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D.D.C. 2008)
6 Rodd, S. (2016, September 30). D.C.’s Broken Parole System. Washington City Paper. Retrieved from http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/
news/city-desk/article/20835466/dcs-broken-parole-system

The Sentencing Project • 1705 DeSales Street NW, 8th Floor • Washington, D.C. 20036 • sentencingproject.org

Delaying a Second Chance: The Declining
Prospects for Parole on Life Sentences
Nazgol Ghandnoosh, Ph.D.
January 2017

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

Juvenile Life Without Parole: An Overview (2016)
Testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee on the Sentencing
Reform and Corrections Act of 2015 (2015)
Life Goes On: The Historic Rise in Life Sentences in America (2013)

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.