Bill Overview
Title: Second Look Act of 2022
Description: 2022 This bill allows a defendant who has served at least 10 years in prison to petition a federal court for a sentence reduction. Specifically, a court may reduce the prison term for a defendant if (1) the imposed prison term was more than 10 years; (2) the defendant has served at least 10 years in custody; and (3) the court finds that the defendant is not a danger to public safety, is ready for reentry, and the interests of justice warrant a sentence modification. The bill outlines the factors a court may consider in reducing a prison term. Further, the bill creates a rebuttable presumption of release for a defendant who is 50 years of age or older on the date of the petition.
Sponsors: Sen. Booker, Cory A. [D-NJ]
Target Audience
Population: People incarcerated in federal prisons eligible for sentence reduction
Estimated Size: 25120
- According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, as of 2023, there are approximately 157,000 inmates in federal custody.
- Not all these inmates will qualify for sentence reduction under the Second Look Act, as only those who have served at least 10 years and meet certain criteria are eligible.
- The population of prisoners serving more than 10-year sentences is a subset of the total prisoner population.
- Factors like age, behavior, and specific crime will filter eligible prisoners further.
- Assuming a significant proportion of long-term prisoners are over or near 50 years old, they will be eligible for the rebuttable presumption of release.
- An estimated 20% of federal prisoners might meet the 10-year criterion alone, which would be about 31,400 inmates.
Reasoning
- Federal prisoners eligible under this policy might range from those involved in non-violent offenses to those initially deemed higher risk but who have shown significant personal reform over their lengthy incarceration.
- The Cantril wellbeing score for many will start lower due to the lack of freedom and high stress involved in long-term incarceration. The possibility of release upon showing rehabilitation could potentially increase future wellbeing scores.
- People unaffected by the policy can also show up in the analysis, those who are serving shorter sentences or don't qualify under the criteria won't see the direct benefits, and thus their scores may remain stable over time.
- The costs associated with prisoners holding long sentences are substantial, and lawmakers often weigh these against potential risks and societal safety.
- The age factor in the bill suggests older prisoners will value family and community reintegration more due to lost time, leading to a stronger positive response to policy application.
- The wellbeing boost for eligible prisoners could translate into decreased re-incarceration and recidivism, affecting broader cost and safety metrics.
- Budget implications extend beyond just the direct costs of incarceration and involve weighing the societal and systemic benefits of reduced prison populations.
Simulated Interviews
former accountant (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the policy gives hope to those who have changed and are no longer a risk to society.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
former healthcare worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this recognize the potential for rehabilitation and change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
unemployed (Chicago, IL)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Being older, having another chance to be with my family means everything.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm still hopeful for the future, using this time to improve myself.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
teacher (New York, NY)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The act seems like a light at the end of the tunnel for many serving excessive terms.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
construction worker (Seattle, WA)
Age: 36 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy acknowledges human potential for change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
retired military (Denver, CO)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It feels redeeming to know that the system considers the merit of reform over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
entrepreneur (Miami, FL)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law would significantly improve the lives of those who have truly reformed.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
graphic designer (Philadelphia, PA)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This gives me hope to reunite with my family and start anew.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
community volunteer (San Diego, CA)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a merciful gesture recognizing that justice systems can evolve.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $-50000000 (Low: $-70000000, High: $-30000000)
Year 2: $-80000000 (Low: $-100000000, High: $-60000000)
Year 3: $-100000000 (Low: $-120000000, High: $-80000000)
Year 5: $-120000000 (Low: $-140000000, High: $-100000000)
Year 10: $-140000000 (Low: $-160000000, High: $-120000000)
Year 100: $-1500000000 (Low: $-1800000000, High: $-1200000000)
Key Considerations
- The Act could lead to an administrative workload surge if a significant number of petitions are filed.
- Age and health condition factors in federal prison might significantly alter outcome expectations, especially healthcare cost savings.
- The length of reentry period and available support resources would dictate the success rate of re-integrating released inmates.