This is the fifth and final showcase of our selected preliminary findings on public support for sentencing reform in New Jersey across four areas. The fourth area concerns two different reforms. While the first reform focused on the elimination of mandatory minimum sentences for non-violent drug crimes, the second reform surrounds the creation of “Look-Back” statutes that review the sentences imposed on individuals who were youth (below age 18) and sentenced to 30 years or more of imprisonment in the adult criminal system.
In recent years, youth offenders have been identified by U.S. legal systems as less culpable and more amenable to rehabilitation, leading to sweeping changes nationwide in sentencing at both the state and federal levels. Yet New Jersey still has not enacted legislation that would provide for the resentencing of offenders who were legally children at the time of their sentencing. In 2022, the New Jersey Supreme Court decided State v. Comer, 249 N.J. 359 (2022), which created a mechanism for those convicted of murder as youths in the adult criminal system to petition the court for review of their sentences after 20 years. While Comer provides a resentencing opportunity for some, this mechanism does not apply to most defendants in New Jersey who were sentenced for their crimes when they were 18 years old or younger.
Thus, the New Jersey Criminal Sentencing and Disposition Commission has recommended a “Look-Back” statute that provides youth sentenced as adults to 30+ years to be entitled to apply for resentencing after serving 20 years. At the resentencing, the court could modify or reduce the sentence to any term that could have been imposed at the time of the original sentence, based on their diminished culpability at the time of the offense. Relevant factors for the court to consider include chronological age, immaturity, impetuosity, and an inability to appreciate risks and consequences of their actions.
For our study, we were interested in whether members of the public in New Jersey generally supported the “Look-Back” statute recommended by the Commission. We asked 1,529 survey participants how generally supportive they are of a law like the one described above. On a scale of 1 to 7 (from not at all supportive to neutral to completely supportive), on average, we found that participants generally favored this sentencing reform (M = 4.89; SD = 1.56). We found a significant association between participants’ general philosophy that sentencing should be rehabilitative-focused, as well as their more liberal political ideology, and their increased support for this law. Participants with graduate degrees were significantly more likely to support this law. In contrast, females, older participants, those who identified as Republicans, and those with utilitarian punishment philosophies were significantly less likely to support it.
We also wanted to see whether public support of this statute may depend on the circumstances of a juvenile’s case, particularly the offense committed and the defendant’s age at the time of the crime. We randomly presented participants with one of four descriptions of a juvenile who committed a crime and was sentenced in New Jersey, each adapted from a real case. The 1.) type of crime (murder or armed robbery) and 2.) the age of the defendant (age 14 or age 17) were varied in these case descriptions. While the age of the defendant did not affect public levels of support for this law, we found that participants were significantly less likely to support a “Look-Back” statute if a defendant was convicted of murder, as compared to when the defendant committed an armed robbery.
Overall, these preliminary results suggest that members of the public support “Look-Back” statutes in New Jersey; however, they may be less likely to support, or exhibit lower levels of support for, “Look-Back” statutes for youth convicted of murder in the adult criminal court system.