Breaking Out: Court officials should opt for rehabilitation rather than life sentences

Imagine dying in a cold, crowded cell crammed with hundreds of bunkbeds and even more people, who — like you — are doing the best they can to survive. 

Imagine dying in a place where the only hospice care you have is the volunteer company of other incarcerated people who try to understand and sympathize with you. 

Imagine that, over the years, you have watched people you have come to know, love and mentor say their goodbyes and disappear behind the tall iron gate, leaving you behind to rebuild a life for themselves. Watching them go is bittersweet — you are proud knowing that they will have a better life and more opportunities but also sad that you will never experience the feeling of freedom yourself. 

You have experienced personal growth over the decades you spent in the cool confines of prison. You barely recognize the person you were when you were convicted. You have acquired many certificates, continued your education, reunified bonds with your loved ones, found your spirituality and read books that you never would have found interest in if you were not incarcerated. 

But, despite this continual growth, the life without parole sentence that you were given so many years ago prohibits you from ever leaving the institution. You are left to die on a cot, never to fulfill your hopes and dreams.

Life without parole is a type of sentencing that requires the convicted person to serve out the rest of their life in prison. In some cases, this is an alternative to the death penalty, meant to keep the most severe cases off the streets and away from society. 

But for most people, this is an unfair ruling that they eventually outgrow, as most people “age out” of criminal behavior, according to The Sentencing Project, a non profit organization that produces research about sentencing policies and racial disparities. With children as young as 13 getting juvenile life sentences and 1 in 5 incarcerated Black people serving life sentences, it is imperative that this form of sentencing be reevaluated and abolished in favor of a more rehabilitative process that will allow the incarcerated a chance to reintegrate back into society.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, 2,500 children have been given a juvenile life sentence without parole in the United States. However, the average human brain isn’t fully developed until the age of 25, and even then, they are still experiencing personal growth based on acquired experiences and knowledge. It is unethical to sentence somebody to spend the rest of their life in prison when they can’t comprehend the consequences of their actions, let alone their life in five to 10 years. 

Rather than giving lifetime punishments, officials and administrators within the prison industrial complex should opt for rehabilitative and restorative justice and provide incarcerated people with tools to aid their personal growth and development to allow and empower them to make a change in their lives and strive for freedom. This should be made retroactive so that it applies to all 162,000 incarcerated individuals already incarcerated serving a life sentence.

By giving incarcerated individuals the opportunity to better themselves and eventually return home, they have an incentive to use their time productively and take more positive actions for themselves and others. While many may be skeptical about the phenomenal change that would come with reintegrating “lifers” back into society, it would decrease mass incarceration and allow innocent families of the incarcerated “lifers” to connect outside of visitation walls.

When many think of a person who is serving life without parole, they envision a remorseless convicted murderer. However, of those cases, over 17,000 individuals serving life have been convicted of a nonviolent offense. 

These crimes may range from stealing or burglary to drug possession or sales. Additionally, people who are serving life sentences for murder may have been charged with aiding and abetting or participancy because they had been at the scene of the crime but had no intention or active role in murder. 

Regardless of whether or not the incarcerated person serving a life sentence deserves a harsh conviction, most will age out of the behavior that put them there in the first place. According to the Justice Policy Institute, older adults who are incarcerated have a 3% recidivism rate and are considered to be low risk.

Additionally, life imprisonment disproportionately affects and disenfranchises Black communities, as 48.3% of “lifers” and those serving sentences greater than 50 years are Black people. As with all conviction types within the prison industrial system, the disproportionate presence and sentencing of Black people creates profound disparity. 

According to The Sentencing Project, Black people make up more than two-thirds of the life without parole population in nine states, and 33.3% of California’s 40,691-person life without parole population. Black people account for 13% of the U.S.’ population, but they are far more represented in the life-without-parole population than any other race, demonstrating the bias and modern segregation perpetuated by prisons.

In order to safely decrease the number of incarcerated individuals serving life sentences while also promoting rehabilitation, prisons should offer parole to all life sentences based on meritorious credit and second look sentencing, regardless of life without parole status. 

Meritorious credit and “good time”  are systems which allow incarcerated people to earn credits towards shortening their sentence by participating in educational, vocational, work or rehabilitative programs. 

In many cases, offenders lack the guidance, personal experience, education or wisdom that would come with age to be able to realize and understand the full extent of their choices. By engaging in these programs, incarcerated people learn how to become more productive members of society. Granting “lifers” parole would give them an incentive to participate in these programs.

With more than 200,000 individuals serving life or virtual sentences (50 years of more), granting parole to incarcerated individuals serving life without parole may be key to eliminating mass incarceration. These individuals deserve the chance to grow and reintegrate back into society. As a society, we should be more open to the idea of rehabilitation and reform for a rehabilitative justice system and ending life without parole may be the first step toward this. 

Victoria Valenzuela is a junior writing about criminal justice and prison reform and policies. Her column, “Breaking Out,” runs every other Thursday.