Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:29 am
Time: 2:29 am
Results for lifers
5 results foundAuthor: Olotu, Michael Title: Evaluation Report: LifeLine Program Summary: In 1976, Canada removed the death sentence from its Criminal Code and replaced it with a life sentence disposition. There was a need to tailor the approach to target this group of offenders who are incarcerated for lengthy periods. In 1991, the LifeLine Program was implemented in collaboration with a community-based agency in the Ontario Region. The LifeLine Program is a voluntary program designed to provide support to offenders who are serving life or indeterminate sentences. Support is provided through in-reach workers who themselves are lifers or long-term offenders who are on parole and who have been living in the community without incident for at least five years. Their unique understanding and experience of serving a life or long-term sentence enables them to provide other lifers and offenders with indeterminate sentences with support based on those direct experiences. Currently, the LifeLine Program is a national program that involves three components: in-reach services, community support, and public awareness. The LifeLine mission statement is “to provide, through the in-reach and community components, an opportunity to motivate inmates and to marshal resources to achieve successful, supervised, gradual integration into the community”. The goal of the program is for the in-reach workers to meet with lifers and offenders with indeterminate sentences early in their sentence and assist in their adaptation and eventual integration into the correctional environment. Program delivery is managed through contractual service agreements with community agencies that are responsible for the three elements of the delivery model. A steering committee is responsible for providing leadership and direction to the LifeLine Program. The regional coordinators are responsible for managing the contracts with the respective community agencies in their region. The agencies hire, train and supervise the in-reach workers. Administrative and operational leadership is provided by the Assistant Commissioner, Public Affairs and Parliamentary Relations. This report examines the following issues relating to the program: continued relevance of the program; implementation of the program; success of the program; and cost effectiveness. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada, Evaluation Branch, Policy Sector, 2009. 84p. Source: Internet Resource: File #394-2-60: Accessed October 15, 2010 at: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/ev-ll/ev-ll-eng.pdf Year: 2009 Country: Canada URL: http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/text/pa/ev-ll/ev-ll-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 119989 Keywords: InmatesLife SentenceLifersVolunteers |
Author: Weisberg, Robert Title: Life in Limbo: An Examination of Parole Release for Prisoners Serving Life Sentences with the Possibility of Parole in California Summary: In recent years, California’s prison system has been under federal judicial control because of severe overcrowding, which partly results from the recycling of revoked inmates under parole supervision. The federal litigation has cast a sharp focus on the mandatory parole system created by the 1976 Determinate Sentencing Law and viewed as the legal mechanism by which this recycling has developed. But far too little attention has been given to the prison population serving life sentences with the possibility of parole under older indeterminate sentencing principles, a population that as of 2010 represents a fifth of California state prisoners. More than 32,000 inmates comprise the “lifer” category, i.e., inmates who are eligible to be considered for release from prison after screening by the parole board to determine when and under what condition. (This group of prisoners is distinct from the much smaller population of 4,000 individuals serving life sentences without the possibility of parole (LWOP)). The goal of this project is to examine in empirical detail (a) the lifer population, covering key details of its demographics, and (b) the processes by which lifers are considered for release, including an examination of historical trends in grant and denial rates, the recidivism record of released inmates, and legal and policy analysis of the specific mechanisms of the parolee hearing process. Despite the importance of the lifer population in terms of its size and the major legal and policy changes that have occurred to the parole process for lifers in the last several years, little research has yet been devoted to this topic. This is the first in a series of reports the Stanford Criminal Justice Center (SCJC) will be issuing on this topic. It describes the scope of the population of prisoners serving life sentences with the possibility of parole, as well as the process by which they are considered for release. It also includes initial analysis from our research examining Board of Parole Hearings transcripts the factors that might correlate with grant and denial decisions. Finally, this report identifies important research questions we are now pursuing. Details: Stanford, CA: Stanford Criminal Justice Center, 2011. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2011 at: http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/publications_pdf/SCJC%20Lifer%20Parole%20Release%20Sept%202011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.stanford.edu/display/images/dynamic/publications_pdf/SCJC%20Lifer%20Parole%20Release%20Sept%202011.pdf Shelf Number: 122807 Keywords: Life ImprisonmentLife SentenceLife Without ParoleLifersParoleSentencing (California) |
Author: New South Wales. Parliament. Legislative Council. Standing Committee on Law and Justice Title: Security classification and management of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment Summary: In July 2015 it became publicly known that some inmates sentenced to life imprisonment had been reclassified to a medium or minimum security level. This became a prominent matter in the media following an outcry from the public and victims' families. The Commissioner of Corrective Services subsequently reclassified these inmates from their lower security classifications to maximum security. This inquiry was established soon afterwards to consider how lifers should be classified and whether they should have access to rehabilitation programs. Summary of recommendations Recommendation 1 32 That the NSW Government amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 to establish a separate classification for inmates sentenced to life imprisonment with little or no prospect of release from custody that is based on the risk they pose to the community, preserves the good order of correctional facilities and ensures the safe and effective management of the inmates. Recommendation 2 32 That Corrective Services NSW develop and action a comprehensive communication strategy to educate the public on the operation of the New South Wales correctional system. Recommendation 3 44 That the NSW Department of Justice consider merging the victims registers of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, Juvenile Justice and Corrective Services NSW. Recommendation 4 45 That Corrective Services NSW trial an opt-out Victims Register for victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment. Recommendation 5 45 That, as part of the opt-out system at recommendation 4, Corrective Services NSW establish a policy whereby the Victims Register conduct a one-off follow up of victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment who have opted-out of the register to ask if the victim would like to reconsider joining the register, and that victims be informed of this policy when they initially make the decision to opt-out. Recommendation 6 49 That Corrective Services NSW establish a policy whereby, as soon as possible following sentencing, the Victims Register provide an information package to victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment and offer to telephone or meet with them to explain the correctional system, custodial management practices and the day-to-day life of an inmate and that it consider doing this in the presence of a counsellor. Recommendation 7 49 That Corrective Services NSW develop, in consultation with victim support groups and the Commissioner of Victims Rights, a form to be provided to victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment following sentencing that includes a list of matters that victims can nominate to receive updates about, and that this form also be made available to current victims of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment. Recommendation 8 55 That the NSW Government amend the Crimes (Administration of Sentences) Regulation 2014 to state that, in cases where the Commissioner for Corrective Services does not adopt the recommendations of the Serious Offenders Review Council, reasons as to why the recommendations were not adopted must be provided. Recommendation 9 62 That the NSW Government consider measures to improve the capacity of the prison system to adequately house, manage and care for aged and frail inmates, including to establish designated units and areas in more correctional centres in New South Wales. Details: Sydney: NSW Parliament, 2016. 94p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 11, 2016 at: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/344106974ffada7bca257f8a0082b906/$FILE/Final%20Report%20-%20Security%20classification%20and%20management%20of%20inmates%20sentenced%20to%20life%20imprisonment.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Australia URL: http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/344106974ffada7bca257f8a0082b906/$FILE/Final%20Report%20-%20Security%20classification%20and%20management%20of%20inmates%20sentenced%20to%20life%20imprisonment.pdf Shelf Number: 138627 Keywords: Inmate ClassificationInmatesLife ImprisonmentLife SentenceLifersPrisoners |
Author: Ghandnoosh, Nazgol Title: Delaying a Second Chance: The Declining Prospects for Parole on Life Sentences Summary: Most people serving life sentences were convicted of serious crimes. Their incarceration was intended to protect society and to provide appropriate punishment. But many were sentenced at a time when "life with the possibility of parole" meant a significantly shorter sentence than it has become today. Many remain incarcerated even though they no longer pose a public safety risk. Researchers have shown that continuing to incarcerate those who have "aged out" of their crime-prone years is ineffective in promoting public safety. Long sentences are also limited in deterring future crimes given that most people do not expect to be apprehended for a crime, are not familiar with relevant legal penalties, or criminally offend with their judgment compromised by substance abuse or mental health problems. Unnecessarily long prison terms are also costly and impede public investments in effective crime prevention, drug treatment, and other rehabilitative programs that produce healthier and safer communities. Despite this body of criminological evidence, the number of people serving life sentences has more than quadrupled since 1984—a faster rate of growth than the overall prison population. Even between 2008 and 2012, as crime rates fell to historic lows and the total prison population contracted, the number of people serving life sentences grew by 12%. By 2012, one in nine people in U.S. state and federal prisons - nearly 160,000 people were there under life sentences. Two factors have driven this growth: the increased imposition of life sentences, particularly those that are parole-ineligible,6) and an increased reluctance to grant parole to the 110,000 lifers who are eligible. This report documents the growing wait for parole among eligible lifers and identifies four factors producing longer prison terms for this population. The findings draw on a national survey in response to which 31 states and the federal government provided data for available years since 1980. The analyses reveal that a variety of policy choices and practices at the state and federal levels have caused recently paroled lifers to serve longer prison sentences than their counterparts in the past. Specifically, and as elaborated in 32 in-depth jurisdiction profiles: In South Carolina, lifers paroled in 2013 had served an average of 27.5 years in prison whereas those paroled in 1980 had served 11.6 years. In Missouri, time served among paroled lifers increased steadily from 15.0 years in 1991 to 25.2 years in 2014. In eight jurisdictions for which data are available since the 1980s, average time served by lifers with murder convictions nearly doubled from 11.6 years for those paroled in the 1980s to 23.2 years for those paroled between 2000 and 2013.8) In California, death before parole is not an uncommon outcome for lifers. A press spokesman for the corrections department has 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. Our examination of the 32 jurisdictions for which we were able to obtain data identifies four key drivers of the growth in prison terms for parole-eligible lifers: Legislation: Lawmakers in several states have made parole much harder to obtain by delaying when lifers can receive their initial parole consideration and by increasing the wait times for subsequent hearings after parole is denied. Gubernatorial Authority: Governors in some states have overhauled the composition of parole boards to appoint members who will reduce parole grants. In a few states, gubernatorial approval is necessary before parole boards can even review cases or for their recommendations to become final. Parole Board Decisions: Parole boards now are evaluating lifers who have served longer sentences than their counterparts in the past. Yet despite a general understanding that older parole applicants pose a reduced risk of recidivism, parole boards have not increased, and sometimes have even reduced, their grant rates. Parole Board Procedures: Most states afford only limited rights to incarcerated individuals during parole hearings and some recently have further narrowed these rights. Lifer parole procedures have broad implications. According to the American Law Institute, the most severe penalties serve as an "anchor point," or a benchmark of severity, on which penalties are established for less serious crimes.10) By placing upward pressure on prison sentences for people with less serious convictions, excessive prison terms for lifers have contributed to a major cause of mass incarceration. To reduce excessive prison terms, The Sentencing Project has previously recommended that states and the federal government abolish sentences of life without the possibility of parole and limit most prison sentences to a maximum of 20 years.11) Based on the findings of this report, we make four additional proposals. To reduce excessive sentences for parole-eligible lifers and to give rehabilitated individuals a meaningful opportunity for release from prison—as the Supreme Court now requires for those convicted as juveniles12)—we recommend that policymakers and parole practitioners: Expedite parole eligibility: Reduce the minimum number of years that lifers must serve before their first parole hearing and shorten wait times for subsequent hearings. Depoliticize and professionalize parole boards: Distance governors from paroling authorities to enable parole decisions to be based on meaningful assessments of public safety risk. Establish a presumption of release: Parole boards should assume that parole candidates are potentially suited for release at the initial, and especially subsequent, parole hearings unless an individual is deemed to pose an unreasonable public safety risk. Improve the integrity of parole hearings: Expand the procedural rights of parole applicants, enable parole applicants to review the evidence used to evaluate their eligibility for parole, and allow the public to review decision-making criteria and outcomes. This report is organized as follows: Section I presents key findings on lifer parole policies, practices, and outcomes across the country based on data provided by state and federal agencies and other organizations. Section II provides an in-depth look at a sample of four states: California, Georgia, Missouri, and New York. These states were chosen based on the size of their lifer populations, the representativeness of their lifer parole procedures and outcomes, geographic distribution, and availability of data. Sections III and IV summarize past research on people serving life sentences and on parole boards, respectively. Section V concludes by recommending reforms to depoliticize the parole process and reverse the excessive growth in prison terms for lifers. The Appendices present details on our methods of data collection and analysis. A supplemental document contains the profiles of all 32 jurisdictions for which we obtained data. Details: Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project, 2017. 40p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 1, 2017 at: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Delaying-a-Second-Chance.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Delaying-a-Second-Chance.pdf Shelf Number: 144932 Keywords: Life SentencesLife Without ParoleLifersParole |
Author: Cozzens, Quinn Title: A Way Out: Abolishing Death By Incarceration in Pennsylvania. Summary: Philadelphia County has 2,694 people serving life without parole sentences (LWOP), which is more than any other county in the United States and far more than any other country in the world, according to a new data analysis released today by the Abolitionist Law Center. A Way Out: Abolishing Death By Incarceration in Pennsylvania found Pennsylvania has 5,346 people serving LWOP, making the state a national leader in the use of the punishment; only Florida, with twice the population, has more people serving LWOP. State Representative Jason Dawkins and State Senator Sharif Street have filed legislation that would allow parole eligibility for all lifers after 15 years of incarceration. The report refers to life without parole as "Death by Incarceration" (DBI). Key findings include: Most of the people serving DBI were convicted and sentenced when they were 25 or younger, a period of life when brain development and maturation remains ongoing, according to recent neuroscientific research. More than 70 percent of those serving DBI are over 40 and nearly half (2,377 people) are over 50. The practice continues even though research shows that criminal activity drops significantly after age 40 and despite the fact that locking up a person over 55 is two to three times more expensive. Black Pennsylvanians are serving DBI at a rate more than 18 times higher than that of their white counterparts. Out of Philadelphia's 2,694 people serving DBI, 84 percent are Black. In Allegheny County, 13 percent of the county's residents are Black, but constitute 76 percent of those serving DBI sentences (409 out of 541 people). "This report presents a definitive portrait of a punishment that is archaic, cruel, unjustified, and indefensible," said Bret Grote, Legal Director of the Abolitionist Law Center and co-author of the report. "Death by incarceration sentences do not keep the public safer. The human and economic costs are staggering and growing by the year, as thousands of aging, rehabilitated men and women are locked away needlessly. Fortunately, there is also a rapidly growing movement determined to make parole eligibility for all lifers a reality." In all cases involving defendants 18 years of age or older, Pennsylvania law does not allow for individualized consideration of a defendant's circumstances; instead it mandates automatic DBI sentences to many who never actually killed or intended to kill anyone. As the report states, DBI is "a failed policy predicated upon the fallacy that the trajectory of a persons life - including their capacity for rehabilitation, transformation, and redemption - can be accurately predicted at the time of sentencing." Avis Lee is an example of a person serving a DBI sentence because none of the particulars of her case were taken into consideration at sentencing - and may have made a difference. Ms. Lee has served 38 years of a DBI sentence due to a robbery committed by her brother that tragically went wrong and someone lost his life. Ms. Lee was only 18 years old and had been told by her brother to serve as a look out during a robbery. Ms. Lee had turned to drugs and alcohol after a childhood riddled with sexual abuse, violence, poverty, and the death of her mother. After the shooting, she flagged down a bus and told the driver a man was injured. For more than 25 years, she has had no disciplinary infractions in prison. Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania Superior Court agreed to hear her claim that her mandatory life sentence was disproportionate because of her youth. There is hope for Ms. Lee, though not many others. The Philadelphia DA's Office is considering reviewing certain cases of excessive sentences, including mandatory life without parole sentences, and will pursue a lesser sentence when legally viable. The trend toward electing reform-oriented, less punitive district attorneys across the country could lead to similar efforts at sentence review being implemented in DA offices on a national scale. Details: Pittsburgh: Abolitionist Law Center, 2018. 120p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 20, 2018 at: http://abolitionistlawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ALC_AWayOut_27August_Full1.pdf Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: http://abolitionistlawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/ALC_AWayOut_27August_Full1.pdf Shelf Number: 151599 Keywords: Life Sentences Life Without Parole LifersRacial Disparities Sentencing Reform |