By John Leverso
Across the U.S., tough-on-crime policies are surging again, despite research showing they do little to reduce crime, particularly violent offenses.
Before the early 1990s, people who were sentenced to 10 years in prison might be released after serving roughly half that long. That’s because of policies that allowed incarcerated individuals to earn credit for good behavior or, in some states, to avoid losing credits they already held toward an early release. These so-called “good time” policies were created by states to encourage good behavior and rehabilitation and to reduce prison overcrowding.
But in the 1990s, when national politics was focused on crime rates, Congress encouraged states to adopt so-called “truth-in-sentencing” laws, which required people to serve at least 85% of their prison sentence.
As research highlighted the inefficacy and unintended consequences of these laws, states rolled them back or modified them, mostly by partially repealing them or reducing the severity of mandatory sentences.
Some efforts to roll back harsh sentencing rules continue: In Illinois, traditionally a leader in criminal justice reform, one bill that would soften truth-in-sentencing requirements has stalled, though another was introduced in January 2025.
But in many other states, truth-in-sentencing laws and other similar laws that impose longer sentences are making a comeback, particularly for violent crimes.
Since 2023, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Dakota and Tennessee have passed truth-in-sentencing laws. North Dakota is now considering similar legislation. In November 2024, Colorado voters required people convicted of violent crimes to serve higher percentages of their sentences, which is a similar move, though it didn’t bear the “truth-in-sentencing” label.
A personal lens on the topic
These laws have real effects on real people.
In 1998, I was sentenced to 22 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections for a gang-related violent crime I committed as a juvenile. I served just 11 of those years under a long-standing policy that allowed individuals to serve half their sentence with good behavior.
But if I had been arrested just 100 days later, a truth-in-sentencing law would have taken effect, and I would have had to serve the full 22 years.
Eleven years is a long time. Since my release in 2012, I’ve earned a bachelor’s degree, a master’s degree and a Ph.D. I’m now a college professor, author, husband and father.
If I had been required to serve my full sentence, I would have been released in 2023, older and with fewer opportunities for education, rehabilitation and rebuilding my life.
Instead of being able to start my education at the age of 30, I would have entered the world in my forties, making it much harder to pursue a decade of schooling to become a professor. The delay would have also made it harder to start a family, forcing me to balance career-building with the difficulties of having children later in life.
AP Photo/Jae C. Hong
Not deterring crime
Supporters of truth-in-sentencing laws say they are intended to increase accountability for wrongdoing and deter crime. The logic can seem reasonably intuitive: If people know they will receive a harsher punishment, they will be less likely to commit particular crimes.
But research finds that those are not the results. There is no compelling evidence that punitive sentencing policies discourage individuals from engaging in criminal activity.
And states without truth-in-sentencing laws have seen their crime rates fall to roughly the same degree as states that have the laws.
Harming society at large
Research also finds that truth-in-sentencing laws cause far-reaching harms to people convicted of crimes and to society at large, undermining both rehabilitation and public safety.
Because truth-in-sentencing laws focus on deterrence, they do not address the causes of criminal behavior, such as poverty and childhood trauma.
These laws also make prisons less safe: They remove incentives for people in prison to follow the rules, get an education, participate in psychotherapy or otherwise engage in positive activities while behind bars.
The vast majority of incarcerated people – six out of every seven inmates – are released into society again. Under truth-in-sentencing laws, they emerge from prison less prepared to follow the laws than they would have been if they had access to educational programs, therapy and an incentive structure that encouraged rehabilitation while incarcerated.
A study in Georgia, for instance, found that after stricter sentencing requirements were enacted, inmates subject to the new rules committed more disciplinary infractions and participated in fewer rehabilitation programs in prison. And once released, they were more likely to commit new crimes than released inmates who had not been subject to the stricter sentences.
Costing taxpayers dearly
Additionally, the financial burden of these laws is significant.
For example, Arkansas’ truth-in-sentencing law, passed in 2023, is projected to cost the state’s taxpayers at least US$160 million over the next decade to pay for increased prison capacity and staffing.
Instead of deterring crime, truth-in-sentencing laws lock more people up for longer periods of time without addressing the underlying factors, which strains already overburdened correctional systems.
These laws also disproportionately affect people of color, exacerbating systemic inequities in the criminal justice system.
AP Photo/Eric Risberg
A different path
For me, the possibility of earning good-time credit was a powerful motivator to engage in rehabilitative activities and regain lost time after disciplinary infractions.
When I began my sentence, Illinois law allowed people to receive a 50% reduction in their sentence through good-time credit: I might need to serve only half of my original 22-year sentence, and be released after 11 years, if I maintained good behavior.
Breaking the rules would cost credit, extending my time in prison beyond that 50% mark. Early in my sentence, I broke the rules and was placed in isolation – also called segregation or restrictive housing, in a cell for 24 hours a day, except for six hours of exercise a week – for a total of 18 months, resulting in a significant loss of my good-time credit. As a result, instead of serving 11 years, my expected time in prison increased to approximately 12.5 years.
This setback was a turning point. I knew that my actions had directly affected the length of time I would have to spend in prison. I became determined to earn back my lost time. I focused on staying out of trouble, earning my GED, completing my associate degree and enrolling in available programs. I was able to regain my time credit and had to serve only 11 years.
Under today’s truth-in-sentencing laws, none of this would have been possible. I would have been required to serve my full sentence, regardless of whether I chose to change, rehabilitate or prepare for life after prison. The ability to reduce my sentence through good behavior and educational achievement gave me a tangible incentive to turn my life around, an opportunity that truth-in-sentencing laws eliminate.
A way forward
By contrast, investing in rehabilitation not only improves outcomes for those incarcerated but also makes communities safer by reducing the cycle of crime.
Research shows that in-prison rehabilitation programs – particularly those centered on education and vocational training programs and social-support services such as housing help, mental health care and job placement assistance – reduce recidivism rates. While in prison, people are held accountable while also having opportunities to grow and learn, preparing for successful reintegration into society after their release.
I believe that in the overwhelming majority of people in prison, there is potential for redemption – but that potential is most likely to emerge when they have opportunities to learn and grow and receive benefits for making changes in their lives.
Unfortunately, many states are choosing to spend millions locking up more people for longer periods – while giving them less opportunity to improve themselves and their lives, reducing their potential for change and safe, productive reintegration into society upon release.
John Leverso is Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati.
t. o. Doug says
You make very strong point for kids in your situation (who may be good kids caught up in bad situations), but there are other offenders that people have in mind when they support these types of laws.
There is nothing more infuriating than watching someone who committed SA on a child get off after a very short period of time. Also, there are situations when someone beats their spouse half to death and then gets out so fast that the victim can never feel safe again.
R.S. says
Why do you get infuriated, Doug? Do you have a need to get even? In that case, perhaps you should focus on and deal with your needs, instead of alleviating your needs at the cost of another’s suffering. Perhaps you should learn to focus on what will make our society a better society, rather than the alleviation of your need for revenge, suppose? Look at Scandinavian prisons: people in jail are treated kindly; they are taught; and they are respected. As a consequence, Scandinavian jails have a recidivism rate of 20 percent; compare that to our get-even system which has a recidivisim rate of 70 percent. What should we focus on? Maiking Doug less infuriated? Or improving the climate of our society?
Skibum says
I have to take issue with the author’s assertions that tough on crime sentencing doesn’t work, especially when applied to violent offenders, he states. Well, excuse my head-shaking disagreement, but keeping violent offenders locked up for “severe” longer time periods DEFINETLY works to prevent those violent offenders from injuring or killing more innocent victims. Why do you think every state in the nation has made domestic violence laws much stricter in recent years, mandating that the primary attacker is locked up in jail when there is any evidence of violence against a live-in spouse or partner, regardless of whether or not the victim wishes to press charges? That small step alone keeps people safe and allows a person who has been a victim of violence a chance to get away from their attacker if they so choose while the suspect is locked up where they can do no more harm. No punishment except the death penalty assures a violent offender will never victimize someone ever again, but if judges would use their lawful discretion as well as strict sentencing laws to put away violent offenders for a very long time, that would go a long way in keeping others who would be potential victims safe. This author seems to have an unusual affinity for convicted violent felons over the wellbeing and safety of the general public. I wonder why that is… oh yeah, in the late 90s he was convicted of a violent gang related crime and sentenced to 22 years in prison, but only served 11 years in custody. Do people REALLY believe a violent offender like he admitted he was deserved to have 50% of his prison sentence eliminated, just because? I wonder if his victim, or their family if the victim was killed, feels about having violent offenders only serving 50% of the prison time that a judge ordered? Victims of violent crime, IF they are lucky enough to actually survive that violence, have a lifetime to endure what happened to them, and never, EVER get the luxury of eliminating 50%, or even a fraction thereof, of what they had to go through and how it has affected their present life as well as the future for these victims. So while I think it is appropriate that violent offenders be afforded “good time” in prison and a part of their sentence reduced for good behavior, I believe 50% is way too excessive, and only granted as a way of moving people out probably to save money and/or to make room for other inmates rather than an indication that shorter prison sentences have in any way whatsoever succeeded in reducing the potential of a violent offender harming others in the future.
Ed P says
To John Leverso,
Your journey is but one story. Defined as anecdotal.
Not enough research to make reset policy.
Skibum is correct in my opinion and I believe most victims of violent crime would feel the same.
R.S. says
Mr. Skibum, would you try to support your argument with evidence, please? You cannot make problems go away by defining them away or what do you mean by “definetly”? Or did you mean “definitely” by your personal conviction without facts? Again, our system leads to 70 percent recidivism; the Scandinavian system has a mere 20 percent rate of recidivism. Those are facts. Putting someone in jail to make life miserable for that person does not alleviate any problems for him/her. If our jails were well-funded teaching institutions, they might show some success. Feeding someone bad food for some years, diminishing their self-confidence and self-worth, stressing their mental wellbeing by isolation, giving some undereducated persons absolute power over them, tolerating gang warfare in prisons, using them as slave labor for dead-end jobs, depriving them of reading materials, releasing them finally to a different world without a job or income or some savings, and issuing bills for their ill treatment in the jail–that is your answer to improving our society? US-America has 6 percent of the world’s people; it has 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated people. And despite its harsh incarceration policies and inflated rate of incarceration, it is by no means among the safest countries of the world, ranging about midway immediately following Iran on the safety scale.
t. o. Doug says
R.S. Look man, I don’t know what your deal is but I think the average person would say that the victim should at least be considered in all of this.
In both examples I gave, the victim (a child and a domestic violence survivor) is punished far worse than the perpetrator if they have to live in constant fear following a sentence that is too short.
Maybe that’s fine with you. Maybe you think the victim should be punished worse than the criminal- but I don’t, and I don’t think most people do.
Skibum says
R.S., the U.S. Dept. of Justice has very detailed statistics on recidivism. In addition to my almost 30 year career working in the criminal justice system – both out on the street as well as inside local and state prisons out on the west coast, recent federal statistics tell the story:
* Only about 25% of people released from prison for a violent offense are re-arrested for another violent offense within three years
* Over 60% of violent offenders recidivated by being rearrested for a new crime or for a violation of supervision conditions
* Nearly 64% of prisoners who had been convicted of violent offenses were arrested within eight years compared with about 40% of those convicted of nonviolent offenses
That last statistic should be alarming to those who are uninformed about what motivates violent offenders. I’m sure that victims of violent crimes don’t need the education or warnings to know how dangerous violent offenders can be when or if they are released from prison. The vast majority of violent offenders are PREDATORS who seek out victims to be preyed upon, usually those they estimate are the weakest or most vulnerable among us. Predators don’t have feelings or show compassion… they are solely focused on getting what they want whether that is someone’s money or property, or sex, or just the thrill of killing others to show their power and ability to decide who they want to live and who dies. The statistic that shows violent offenders have a much higher propensity to commit more acts of violence against others when released from prison compared to non-violent offenders should inform you and the rest of society of the importance of long prison sentences, because THAT is the ONLY thing judges and juries can do to ensure the safety of the public from being preyed upon again by the predatory offenders who’s only means they know is to use violence against others to get whatever it is they happen to want.
R.S. says
Skibum, you’re diffusing the statistics. Of course, violent crimes do not recidivate all that much because, by the time they’re released, they’re too old to do any of that. The fact is nonetheless that, according to the most recent statistics that I can find, Norwegian recidivism rate is overall much lower than the statistics for the US. And remember that in Norway, Anders Breivik’s sentence cannot exceed 25 years, the maximum imprisonment for murder–Breivik killed 70 or so and caused a diversion by way of an explosion in Oslo. Of course, psychological evaluation will either extend his confinement or will permit him to be released. The fact is that in Norway, 20 percent of formerly incarcerated comit another crime within two years of release; 25 percent, within five years. In the US, 66 percent of formerly incarcerated individuals are rearrested in three years; 82 percent, in ten years. It stands to reason that we can learn one heck of a lot from Scandinavians. And, of course, the prisoners do not need to learn that their actions cause damage; but that’s not the issue anyway, Mr. Skibum: the issue is to teach prisoners how to be successful, productive, and peaceful members of the society in which they’re living. What you’re trying to achieve through punishment does not work if the person does not know, say, how to maintain and stick to a budget, how to make a living comfortably, or how to get a well paying job in his/her society. Those may be deficiencies of our society–lack of affordable health insurance, cost of living, housing, etc.–or of the individual. All those issues can be worked at and improved before one throws criminals under the bus by way of lengthy incarcerations or killing them. There is too much venom and vengeance in our so-called Departments of “Correction.” I have been communicating with one person incarcerated for 15 years for defending his home and for being the innocent bystander in a theft. His sentence was exacerbated by a tough-on-crime judge because he had had a string of marijuana offenses in his youth. He’s learned nothing in jail but excelling in “god” behavior and may be too old now to do anything else but to fall back into old patterns. So, while you may be right in your assertion that that’s all judges can do, you fail to see that there’s one heck of a lot more that we all could do to improve our social system and to improve our jails to become learning institutions rather than places to inflict more damage. Nonetheless, I believe your heart is in the right place; and I’d love to learn more about your 30-year career.
Ed P says
RS,
Of course it’s our fault, the system is the problem. Maybe the victim should not have been where they were either.
Norwegian comparison is not analogous.
But I give you credit, you believe it. Even when someone with 30 years of on the ground experience ( Skibum) presents a differing perspective. You didn’t bend or compromise on gentle parenting of violent criminals.
R.S. says
EdP, both of your arguments–for my steadfastness and for Skibum’s background–are ad hominems. They bear no weight on the matter at hand and add nothing. But do keep trying. ;-)
Sherry says
Thank you, RS, for the “Valid” statistical comparisons of recidivism rates in the US compared to other countries. Certainly we “should” all be able to agree that the US can do a better job with rehabilitation of all those incarcerated. . . after, as well as during that incarceration. While I certainly don’t believe in coddling those that harm others, a system that is focused primarily on “punishment” /making $$ with warehousing humans dishonors us all.
For the flip side of that coin. . .we should all remember that an adjudicated “Sexual Abuser” is sitting in the White House!
R.S. says
You are so right about the White House occupant, Sherry. Look into Securus Technologies, J-Pay, and the entire private-prison industry to see how people get ripped off grandly. And many an inmate comes from poverty. The inmates’ families will turn away from inmates for fear of becoming impoverished by the system.
Skibum says
R.S., I was very confused when reading your comment to me because it seemed that you are trying to argue points that are opposed to each other. Your first sentence saying of course violent crimes (I believe you mean offenders) do not recidivate that much is because by the time they are released from prison they are too old to commit more crimes. Wow, I wish that were true, but your own attempt at statistics seem to contradict what you just said. And, as a point of fact, your assertion is incorrect because, as I indicated, the federal recidivation statistics show violent offenders commit more violent crimes once released at a higher rate than non-violent offenders. And why do you keep bringing up the Scandinavian countries when talking about our crime problem here? They don’t have the rampant gun problem that we do. While they have ways of doing things that sometimes could be put in place here, there are very distinct societal differences… you might just as well say because the Norwegians eat a lot of lutefisk and are a happier people, all Americans need to have less stress in our lives and be happier is to eat lutefisk. Nonsense is what is amounts to. But the most jaw dropping statement you made was when you said you were “communicating with one person incarcerated for 15 years for defending his home and for being the innocent bystander in a theft.” I have some extremely important and possibly life saving headline news for you!!! Nobody, as in NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON ever has been in prison for 15 years for the felony crime of defending their home and being an innocent bystander in a theft! Wow, does this convicted felon have you completely snookered if you believe that for one hot second! If I were you, I would not walk, but RUN as fast as I could in the opposite direction! Let me give you a little insight into the criminal mind from a first hand perspective. I personally observed during my career multiple convicted felons in prison that would share women’s names, addresses and phone numbers with their felon bros, who would attempt to correspond with, or call on the phone from prison, strike up fake romantic feelings for these delusional women, then continuously beg for money to be put on their books so the felons could purchase things from the inmate store, and some of these sweet talking felons had numerous “sweethearts” on their inmate accounts giving these con men money, being conned by very bad men who had no intention whatsoever to have any kind of relationship with ANY of them once out of prison. One felon in particular that I recall had numerous women on his visitation list, and he had it all scheduled out for each of the women to visit on different days so none of them would be any wiser to what was going on or accidently bump into one of the other women who were the “only one” for him. But one day, one of the women who weren’t supposed to be visiting decided to surprise him with a visit and showed up unannounced along with his “baby’s mama” and they were standing right next to each other in line, waiting to get in, completely unaware that they both were there to see the same felon. I was a lieutenant at the time, and when this felon was called down to the visiting area to visit his baby’s mama and saw through the window the other “surprise” visitor who hadn’t been processed through yet, he panicked and asked to talk to me since I was in charge of the staff and that area. He begged me to send the other one away, and when I refused to be involved in his nefarious scam that he had going on, he refused both visits and the officers had to send both women away just so he would not be found out by both of them, who were nothing more to him than play things… victims, really. So BEWARE because just from the tone of your comment, YOU are being played if you somehow are delusional enough to think that the courts, judges and/or juries send people to prison, for 15 years no less, just because they did nothing more than merely “defending his home” and for being “an innocent bystander”… I CALL A HUGE BS to that, and you can take that to the bank! I’m sorry to have to give you this news, but you really should google “STOCKHOLM SYNDROME” because it appears you have come under the spell of someone and cannot comprehend that they are where they are because they committed a very serious crime, particularly if all you have to go on is “correspondence” from this felon you are communicating with.
R.S. says
No attempt to mislead, Skibum. I read the entire transcript of the trials–both of them. And saw the record of the juvenile marijuana issues that prompted the judge to go wild. Plea bargain would have cost him a year. When he insisted on his innocence, the judge went wild. And the judge had a much too harsh a record, according to connections in the Public Defenders Office–back then. Scandinavian countries show us how to deal with prisoners, IMHO. We could learn. The gun issue is one of the social ills we could fix if we weren’t so darned fixated on profits for the crazies at the gun lobby and the nuts at the NRA. Race also played a role and plays a role in the incarceration with white supremacist groups and Odin worshippers running amok in the prisons. It seems to be a war in there, corroborated by calls. You might know if you were among supervising personnel.
Skibum says
R.S., I happen to agree with you on many of your points.
Susan says
To R S…Nah I will stick with punishing (by way of prison) the guilty , by locking them up ! ps We do not care how they do it over there. So now is this the part where you will tell me to get professional help with my beliefs ? If so spare me.