We continue to showcase preliminary findings from our survey of New Jersey residents on their support for sentencing reform in four key areas. The second area concerns public support for establishing rehabilitative release programs that allow incarcerated persons who have reached a certain age and served a specified portion of their sentence to petition a judge for resentencing based on proof of rehabilitation.
Research shows that older individuals are less likely to reoffend, and the New Jersey Sentencing Commission has proposed a program to allow eligible incarcerated persons to seek resentencing by demonstrating that they have been sufficiently rehabilitated. Furthermore, providing incarcerated individuals with an incentive to use their time productively helps them position themselves for successful lives after incarceration. Under the proposed framework, incarcerated persons who reach age 60 (or 62 for those convicted of murder) and have served 20 years in prison (or 30 years for murder) could apply for resentencing, during which a court would weigh a range of factors.
In 2024, two bills were introduced in the New Jersey Senate and Assembly that would permit the Commissioner of the Department of Corrections to issue certificates to those eligible, allowing them to petition for resentencing. Victims or their families would have the opportunity to participate in resentencing hearings or through written statements. If the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the incarcerated person is not a danger to the safety of the community, demonstrates readiness for reentry (which is weighed by assessing a range of factors), and warrants a sentence modification in the interests of justice, the court may modify or reduce the sentence. These bills are currently under legislative review.
For our study, we described the Rehabilitative Release programs outlined above to a sample of 1,529 adults who live in New Jersey. Half read about a general program for persons aged 60+ with 20+ years served, while the other half read about a version specific to those convicted of murder, aged 62+, with 30+ years served. Support levels did not differ significantly between the two groups. On a scale of 1 (not at all supportive) to 7 (completely supportive), the average level of support was 5.05 (SD = 1.54). Support was strongly associated with participants’ general philosophy that sentencing should be rehabilitative-focused. Black participants were significantly more likely to support the programs, while support was lower among women, older participants, and those with retributive or utilitarian punishment philosophies.
We also examined whether the type of program influenced views on the importance of different factors courts consider when assessing a defendant’s readiness for reentry. These factors include demonstrated rehabilitation, disciplinary record while incarcerated, statements by the victim or the victim’s relative, reports from a physical, mental, or psychiatric examination, seriousness of the offense and the incarcerated person’s role, potential benefits to family reunification with the incarcerated person, cost savings to the state, and the filed reentry plan.
There were no statistical differences in how participants weighed these factors based on the version of the program they read for general incarcerated populations or those convicted of murder. Participants rated the seriousness of the offense and the incarcerated person’s role as the most important factor that should be weighed by the court (M = 5.71; SD = 1.43) while potential cost savings to the state was rated least important (M = 4.50; SD = 1.76). Overall, these preliminary findings suggest that the New Jersey public generally supports the use of rehabilitative release programs in the state.