Second Look Summit Resource Library
This resource library is intended to provide 2023 Second Look Summit attendees and other members of the public with reference materials on second look and resentencing pathways to support their work as trial-level practitioners, community organizers, and advocates. The content of this library is housed under four main sections: Restorative Justice and Supporting Victims, Public Support for Second Look Pathways, Washington State Materials, and Youthful Offenders. All content can be downloaded and saved to a desktop. Please contact brooke@seattleclemencyproject.org with questions regarding the use of this library.
Interested in learning more? “The Prison Within” is a documentary available for streaming. The award-winning film features a restorative justice program at San Quentin State Prison in California. Incarcerated persons and survivors of violence come together in the San Quentin Victim Offender Education Group (VOEG) to discuss trauma, cycles of harm, and healing.
Restorative Justice and Supporting Victims
a. Excerpt from abstract: “Extant research indicates that restorative justice can deliver benefits which the traditional Criminal Justice Process cannot, ranging from victim satisfaction to reducing offender recidivism (Zehr, 2005; Bergseth & Bouffard, 2007). This qualitative review explored victims’ perceptions of a restorative justice process, implemented as victim-offender mediation. It provides an insight often neglected within extant studies, into the contributory factors which victims perceive as being important to the success of a restorative process.”
Washington State Restorative Justice Directory
a. This document provides information on state agencies specializing in restorative justice work and education.
a. Excerpt from the introduction: “This report draws on archival research and interviews to describe an innovative restorative justice program currently operating in the United States that specifically includes cases involving violence. Insight Prison Project is based in Marin County, California. It is now operating restorative justice programs in 14 state prisons, one federal prison, three county jails, several reentry facilities, and one juvenile institution throughout California. We also identify some important lessons learned by stakeholders involved in this program. First, however, we provide a brief overview of the problems restorative justice seeks to address, the primary forms restorative justice programs have taken in the United States and abroad, and some of the limitations to restorative justice as it is generally practiced.”
a. Excerpt from abstract: “Restorative justice emerges as a theoretical-practical approach to the criminal legal system, in which the reparation of damage of the victim is a central point. However, the growing empirical production referring to the effects of this approach on victims is sometimes shown to be weakened or dispersed, focusing mainly on their satisfaction. Objective: The present work intended to systematically evaluate the empirical production of the restorative justice field, to aggregate and examine information in the literature regarding the psychological impacts on victims who participated in restorative practices. Conclusions: The present research showed that restorative justice practices have a positive psychological impact on victims, who are frequently forgotten in conventional justice, and that some of these impacts persist over time.”
Public Support for Second Look Pathways
a. Excerpt from the introduction: “This report looks at how specific policies led to mass incarceration in California, reviews the evidence in support of releasing people who no longer need to be incarcerated, examines the opportunity for California’s Prosecutor-Initiated Resentencing (PIR) law (AB 2942), and shares the real impacts of resentencing on people who have already been released. Finally, the report offers recommendations on implementation and opportunities for further reform,” directed at prosecutors and policy makers.
b. Excerpt from recommendations: “Nearly half of the people incarcerated in California state prisons have already served at least 10 years of their sentence, and over half have served at least seven years. Resentencing these people when appropriate would help to combat racial disparities and strengthen public safety.”
a. Excerpt from the introduction and body: “This article will describe the origins and contours of the growing movement for justice and sentencing reform and assess its impact on the scale of incarceration to date... A key issue in assessing the decarceration trend is American sentencing policy and practice related to the length of prison terms. Defendants convicted of felonies in the U.S. are more likely both to be sentenced to prison and to serve more time in prison than in comparable nations. The excessive nature of punishment in the U.S. is not based on a rational analysis of incarceration and the fundamental objectives of sentencing policy. Moreover, unduly long prison terms are counterproductive for public safety and contribute to the dynamic of diminishing returns as the prison system has expanded... [T]here are many ways in which sentencing policy and practice can be changed in order to produce more rational outcomes for both the individual and society. A key element of that change should be a reconsideration of the scale of punishment in the United States, one of the driving forces that makes the American court system an outlier among democratic nations.”
Hopwood, Shon. “SECOND LOOKS & SECOND CHANCES.” Cardozo Law Review, vol. 41, 2019, pp. 102–132.
a. Excerpt from the introduction: “Our system asks too much of prosecutors, probation officers, and federal judges to determine at the front-end, during charging and sentencing decisions, which defendants will remain a danger and are unredeemable... What decision-makers can’t measure at sentencing, however, is the capacity for people to change... Because it is often difficult to conclude which defendants have the capacity for rehabilitation and redemption at the time of sentencing, we need avenues for decision-makers in the federal criminal justice system to take a second look in individual cases. There are several avenues for decision-makers—whether courts, Congress, federal prosecutors, or the president—to identify people who are serving needlessly long sentences and are no longer a danger to society.”
a. Network of recently elected district attorneys. Condensed summary: “This brief discusses why, consistent with their mission to promote public safety, fiscal responsibility, and justice, prosecutors should seek to review and address excessive sentences that are currently being served. It then looks at the types of mechanisms that may be available for this purpose, depending on the jurisdiction. Finally, it provides specific recommendations of steps that elected prosecutors can take to advance sentencing review and promote second chances as a mechanism to remedy past extreme sentences.”
a. This article explores mass incarceration and prison reform relating to 2018’s First Step Act, which addresses “unduly harsh federal drug sentencing policies” and U.S. recidivism rates. The author proposes a “Second Step Act” as the new legislative solution for “incentivizing states to reduce incarceration rates.”
b. The author notes that incarcerated persons are at increased risk of experiencing bodily harm, death, suicide, and delayed medical care. Special consideration is given to prisoners with mental health problems, people who commit nonviolent offenses, and recidivists in discussions on the purposes and outcomes of long-term incarceration.
a. Excerpt from summary: “Overall, 69% of voters support ‘second look’ legislation that allows for the re-examination of old sentences to provide a second chance for people who have been in prison for more than ten years and who can be safely returned to the community. Support for these reforms is bipartisan and cuts across geography and ideology.”
a. Group of “current and former elected prosecutors and law enforcement leaders from across the country” urging reforms, including vehicles for sentencing review, creating sentencing review units and processes, expanded use of compassionate release, and high-level approval before prosecutors recommend decades-long sentences, “for example 15 or 20 years.”
a. The body of the article notes, in part, that “in a post-conviction process, there may be a greater potential for victim healing through restorative justice practices, which prosecutors could use to facilitate their decision-making process about re-sentencing. Unlike during the trial and sentencing, where the adversarial process is at its peak and emotions are raw for the victim and defendant, when many years have passed and the defendant has found a path to rehabilitation, the defendant’s remorse will be genuine. Additionally, with the passage of time, the victim may be more open to and may find healing in an apology from the defendant.”
b. From body: “While widespread legislative change is necessary, through SB 6164, Washington prosecutors have been given a tool to begin delivering just outcomes immediately in cases where an individual’s sentence no longer serves the interests of justice.”
Ghandnoosh, Nazgol, Ph.D. “A Second Look at Injustice.” The Sentencing Project, May 2021.
a. Excerpt from summary: “To end mass incarceration and invest more effectively in public safety, The Sentencing Project recommends limiting maximum prison terms to 20 years, except in unusual circumstances. Achieving this goal requires abolishing mandatory minimum sentences and applying reforms retroactively. To implement a second look policy that can effectively correct sentencing excesses of the past, The Sentencing Project recommends instituting an automatic sentence review process within a maximum of 10 years of imprisonment, with a rebuttable presumption of resentencing, and intentionally addressing anticipated racial disparities.”
b. Body of report reviewing, in part, the DC experience: “In December 2020, the DC Council overwhelmingly approved the Second Look Amendment Act (“Second Look Act”) as part of a broad package of reforms, allowing people who committed crimes under age 25 to petition the courts for resentencing after 15 years of imprisonment.”
c. Conclusion noting, in part: “Rehabilitation and redemption are relevant goals not only for imprisoned people being held accountable for their crimes, but also for the policymakers, practitioners, and members of the public who demand excessive prison terms that are counterproductive to public safety... Necessary reforms will take a better first look at criminal legal penalties going forward, and a second look at sentences already imposed for past crimes.”
American Bar Association, Resolution 502, adopted August 2022.
a. “RESOLVED, That the American Bar Association urges federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal government to authorize judicial decision-makers to hear petitions for de novo “second look” resentencing brought by any incarcerated person who has served at least 10 continuous years of a custodial sentence.”
b. ABA noting, in part, “Long sentences do not fulfill the goals of sentencing; there is no evidence of general deterrence, and, as for specific deterrence, 10 years according to data is more than sufficient as people age out of crime.”
c. From body: “[S]econd looks are not just about beneficence or mercy. There is much wasted talent behind bars; people languishing on the inside when they could be contributing on the outside as mentors and helping repair families and communities that have been devastated by the draconian sentencing of the past several decades. More directly, second look sentencing can return fathers and mothers to support their sons and daughters, and sons and daughters to act as caregivers to aging parents. Returning citizens can serve as credible messengers to guide at-risk youth, serve as violence interrupters, and in myriad other ways help promote public safety, and can also be entrepreneurs revitalizing communities and becoming taxpaying contributors to society.”
American Bar Association, Resolution 604, adopted August 2022.
a. ABA resolving to adopt Ten Principles on Reducing Mass Incarceration, and urging federal, state, local, territorial, and tribal legislative and other governmental bodies to adopt policies consistent with the same.
b. Principle Six of the Resolution reads: “Adopt ‘second look’ policies, requiring review of sentences of incarceration at designated times to determine if they remain appropriate.”
a. Overview: “Over 260,000 people in U.S. prisons had already been incarcerated for at least 10 years in 2019, comprising 19% of the prison population. Nearly three times as many people—over 770,000— were serving sentences of 10 years or longer. These figures represent a dramatic growth from the year 2000, when mass incarceration was already well underway.”
b. Washington state data shows that in 2000, 28% of those incarcerated in Washington prisons were serving a sentence of a decade or longer, but by 2019, that figure doubled to 59% of those incarcerated.
a. Representatives from the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office arguing in favor of prosecutor-initiated resentencing, in part because it is a “prosecutor's duty to ensure justice goes forward as well as backward.”
b. Excerpted: “Prosecutors have the duty to seek justice, and that includes giving second chances that advance the interest of justice. If there are administrative or procedural hurdles to justice, prosecutors also have the ability and responsibility to advocate for changes—including legislative changes—to ensure justice can be done; it’s time for more prosecutors to do so.”
Washington State Materials
“Education and Vocational Programs in Prisons.” DOC Policy 500.000, 2021.
a. Department policy that prioritizes enrollment for vocational and workforce education for individuals with less than seven years to their earned release date.
“Annual Report.” Office of Corrections Ombuds, November 2021.
a. OCO noting that it received complaints from 1,115 incarcerated individuals in the FY 2021, with complaints related to medical care being a top category of concern. OCO report expresses concern over DOC’s ability to care for incarcerated persons:
b. “OCO continues to be concerned regarding all aspects of DOC’s healthcare and ensuring that incarcerated persons receive necessary medical, mental, and substance use treatment. The following are broader topics of recommendations based on OCO’s individual and systemic investigations over the past fiscal year:
DOC should continue working towards creating a rehabilitative environment that reduces trauma for incarcerated persons, including de-escalation training, antiracist training, and firm limits on the use of solitary confinement.
DOC should create policies, procedures, and practices that respond to the needs of persons engaging in self-harm and that prevent individuals from dying by suicide.
DOC should provide increased access to mental health services to all incarcerated individuals who need them.
DOC should provide appropriate and necessary treatment for individuals’ medical needs.
DOC should apply a trauma-informed and gender-responsive lens to programs, services, staff training, and conditions of confinement, particularly for persons incarcerated at the Washington Corrections Center for Women and the Mission Creek Corrections Center for Women.
DOC should provide a more supportive, safe, and affirming environment for transgender and gender non-conforming incarcerated persons.”
a. Excerpt from conclusion: “The purpose of this report was to provide detailed information about the current Washington State Felony Sentencing Grid to inform discussions being held by the Criminal Sentencing Task Force. Using data on adult felony sentences from fiscal year 2019, this report examines different distributions of standard, non-drug sentences in the context of different aspects of the sentencing guideline grid as well as differences in non-standard sentences, including exceptional sentences, sentencing enhancements, sentences for unranked offenses, and sentencing alternatives...”
b. Beyond general sentencing trends, this report also focuses on analyses of racial disproportionality for standard and non-standard sentences. “Overall, the report found notable areas of racial disproportionality in sentencing outcomes, including that BIPOC defendants were more likely than White defendants to have longer average sentences under both the current and simulated class-based grid. Under the current grid, BIPOC defendants received a higher rate of aggravated sentences and longer average departures for aggravated sentences than White defendants, while White defendants were more likely than BIPOC defendants to receive a sentencing alternative in lieu of the standard incarceration sentence.”
“Fact Card.” Department of Corrections, June 2022.
a. 12,233 persons were incarcerated in Washington state prisons as of June 30, 2022. 29.9% were serving sentences 10 years or longer, 17.3% were serving life with possibility of parole or release, and 4.3% were serving life without possibility of release.
a. Prisons and Sentencing Recommendations include, among others, proposals for expanding parole and implementing “second look sentencing.”
a. Identifies vehicles for resentencing as Miller, Blake, Three Strikes Reform, SB6164, In re Domingo-Cornelio, In re Ali, State v. Houston-Sconiers, In re Monschke/In re Bartholomew, and drug crime resentencing.
a. Excerpt from summary: “Across the country, incarceration rates have reached record levels. In Washington state, too, the imprisonment rate and the total incarceration rate (which also includes jail in-mates) have more than doubled since 1978. As of 2016, Washington’s incarceration rate was more than three times higher than the average rate of the more than 30 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. Washington’s prison population grew, even as crime rates fell precipitously, and the state’s prisons are now operating at capacity. Moreover, Washington is one of only eight U.S. states in which the prison population grew throughout most of the 2010s.”
b. Excerpted: “This report shows that the proliferation of long and life sentences has been an important driver of the growth of Washington’s prison population. As a result of key shifts in state sentencing policy, many prisoners are spending longer and longer periods of time in prison, and a growing number of these people will die behind bars.”
c. Policy recommendation includes, “Implement[ing] a universal or age-based post-conviction review process with a presumption of release. For extremely long and life sentences, release eligibility should occur within 15 years after the conviction.”
a. Excerpt from decision: “We conclude that the resentencing court committed reversible error when refusing to entertain Dunbar’s request for a lower sentence based on his purported rehabilitation.”
b. Excerpted: “We hold that, unless the reviewing court restricts resentencing to narrow issues, any resentencing should be de novo. During the resentencing, the resentencing judge may consider rulings by another judge during the sentencing of the offender, but the resentencing judge should exercise independent discretion. In this context we employ the terms “resentencing court” or “resentencing judge” regardless of the number of resentencings.”
Youthful Offenders
a. “The California legislative response to Miller has been robust, with the passage of several bills that created release opportunities for juvenile offenders, and most “youth” offenders, including those whose offense occurred at age twenty-five years or younger. This article discusses a qualitative study exploring pathways to criminal desistance for ten adult males all of whom were convicted of a homicide offense at age 20 or under and were paroled under one of several California youth offender resentencing laws. The average term of incarceration served was 29 years. The authors article details interviews with the study participants and concludes: This exploratory study sought to understand how young people growing up behind bars could locate desistance in conditions that are theoretically antithetical to moving away from criminal thoughts and behaviors. We found that despite the odds, and without a great deal of formal rehabilitation in the earlier part of their sentences, these men all carved out pathways for personal change that eventually allowed them to be released to free society. As the United States struggles with the dire consequences of mass incarceration, it is notable that 5.7% of those currently serving life sentences were minors at the time of the crime and hence may become eligible for case review. This study provides evidence, albeit not conclusive, that extreme sentences for youth convicted of homicide do not preclude rehabilitation; and moreover, that those in similar circumstances are likely worthy of consideration for resentencing. Longitudinal studies will be needed to track how these individuals fare in the months and years following their release. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that with limited possibilities for change, pathways to desistance are possible.”
a. The authors examined the approach to juvenile lifer resentencing taken by two administrations of the Philadelphia District Attorney Office’s. They observed that of the 174 re-sentenced and released juvenile lifers, “Six (3.5%) have been re-arrested. Charges were dropped in four of the cases and two (1%) resulted in new convictions (one for Contempt and the other for Robbery in the Third Degree).” All of them were serving sentences for first- or second-degree murder. They noted that the “release of Philadelphia's juvenile lifers, to date, will result in an estimated minimum $9.5M savings in correctional costs for Pennsylvania over the first decade.”
b. Excerpted: "Nationally, there are approximately 200,000 persons serving life and virtual life (50 or more years) sentences. Considering that the overwhelming majority of individuals who commit crime—even serious crime— ‘age out’ of criminal behavior, the societal, financial, and public safety benefits of continued incarceration are called into question by the Philadelphia experience.”
a. Excerpted: “This Guide is intended to support attorneys and judges in familiarizing themselves with the contours of the relevant science and how it can be applied to individual cases. A working knowledge of developmental and brain science allows attorneys and judges to make best use of what a juvenile defendant’s life course, circumstances of an alleged offense, and expert evaluations and opinions can tell them to assist in understanding a defendant. For attorneys, this facilitates preparing a case, educating the legal finder of fact, and making optimal use of expert testimony. For judges, this facilitates science-informed decision-making at all trial and appellate phases of a case involving a juvenile or young adult. The goal is to position each individual young defendant within a developmental trajectory comprised of biological, psychological, and social domains. A significant majority of cases will ultimately reflect ‘transitory immaturity,’ a feature of adolescence which will resolve as adolescents mature, resulting in desistance from criminal misconduct. Science-informed decision-making and evidence-based interventions can guide rehabilitation and reduce recidivism (thereby improving community safety) while avoiding or minimizing the negative impact of common responses (such as overuse of detention and incarceration) that can inadvertently compromise positive youth development and increase recidivism. A better understanding of late adolescent brain and behavioral development can transform how the legal system and policy makers respond to late adolescents who offend. By educating decision-makers and advocates, this White Paper informs the criminal justice system and policy makers through providing an updated research perspective on late adolescence and supporting public safety by reducing recidivism through developmentally aligned accountability and empirically based processes and interventions.”
b. Excerpted: “Maturation of brain structure, brain function, and brain connectivity continues throughout the early twenties. This ongoing brain development has profound implications for decision-making, self-control, and emotional processing. For example, new neuroscience research reveals that during emotionally charged situations, late adolescents (ages 18–21) respond more like younger adolescents (ages 13–17) than like young adults (ages 22–25) due to differences in brain maturation. Compared to young adults above age 21, late adolescents (ages 18–21) also take more risks and engage in more sensation-seeking behavior. Due to differences in brain development, late adolescents are more likely than young adults to respond to immediate outcomes and are less likely to delay gratification. The presence of peers can intensify these behaviors, and the brains of late adolescents are more responsive to peer involvement than those of young adults. Late adolescents are also more easily swayed by adult influence and coercion than their adult counterparts. These developmental differences in behavior have direct implications for legal decision-making, including waiving Miranda rights, susceptibility to false confessions, and making ill-advised trial decisions (e.g., plea decisions).”
c. Excerpted: “Moreover, the focus in this line of cases upon the dispositive ‘bright line’ drawn at age 18 for imposing accountability through the adult criminal legal system has raised the question: Is there a reasonable basis found in brain science and developmental research (social, behavioral, criminology) for drawing this line at age 18? Put another way, is there a basis in science for drawing this life-altering line between mid-adolescence (ages 16–17) and late adolescence (ages 18–21)? The neuroscience and social-behavioral science summarized in this document indicates there is no solid basis in science for a line drawn at age 18 for criminal jurisdiction.”
a. From overview and body: "Young people, from ages 18 to 25, are in a distinct developmental stage called ‘emerging adulthood,’ during which they are particularly vulnerable to the violent, traumatizing environment at Rikers, which impedes their healthy transition to adulthood. Research shows that more developmentally appropriate responses to emerging adults lead to healthier outcomes than traditional punitive approaches and, consequently, increase public safety.”
a. Excerpt from abstract: “This article (a) clarifies the current state of the science on typical behavioral and brain development showing robust changes into the twenties; (b) demonstrates that behavior, personality, and psychopathic traits are dynamic and change over time; and (c) underscores that reliance on prior criminal behavior only to predict later recidivism is tenuous at best. Together, these scientific insights make a case for extending juvenile protections to youthful offenders sentenced for crimes committed in their teens and early twenties.”
b. Excerpt from conclusion: “Scientific evidence has emerged over the past several decades that shows unequivocally that there are continued changes in behavior and brain over the life span, especially during the prolonged period of adolescence. The decisions made in Roper and Miller were based largely on behavioral evidence of differences between youths and adults, with little knowledge or appreciation of the functionally significant and legally relevant brain changes throughout adolescence and into, young adulthood. That evidence is now available and further confirms behavioral science. Not only do these findings apply to Roper, Miller, and Montgomery but they also inform the extension of these decisions beyond 18 years. Now the science shows unambiguously that 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds are more similar than different from 17-year-olds in many important aspects of behavioral and brain maturity.”
a. Excerpt from abstract and body: “[T]he authors explore the core emotions involved in the transition from imprisonment to society for released juvenile lifers and how these emotions inform participants’ sense of self.”
b. Excerpted: “The story of release from a life sentence... was characterized by a core emotional experience of joy. Despite experiencing several discomforts and anxieties associated with reentry, these men placed considerable value on the joyful aspects of their newfound freedom, finding pleasure in unexpected places and moments. This theme had two major properties: the initial joy and relief of freedom (i.e., immediately upon release), and everyday joys (i.e., finding pleasure in the ordinary and daily aspects of free life). Allen, who received a JLWOP sentence at age 17 and served 25 years in prison, recalled the moment of his release with a visceral sense of liberation: ‘Just touching my feet to the ground without cops on the other side of the fence and no handcuffs or shackles, it was very liberating. There’s nothing, I don’t think, that could ever prepare me for the sense of relief that I felt at that point in time. It was special. I don’t know if there’s anything in life that would ever be that relieving. Again, I don’t think I’ll ever experience it. I don’t wanna ever experience it in that way.’ Miguel described the moment in which he put on civilian clothing for the first time in 21 years: ‘It felt so weird. I felt like human. Now I’m human. I’m not wearing this costume that I wore for the last 21 years.’ Kent, who served 30 years of a JLWOP sentence received at age 17, described his everyday joy: ‘For me, I’m for real blessed. I love going to work. I love driving. I love everything. Hopefully, knock on wood, I never really get used to or get complacent in my celebration of my freedom because I’m blessed.’”