[This article is authored by Yash Sharan, a student at Hidayatullah National Law University, Raipur]

---

Introduction

In the first half of 2024, the lawmakers of the United States of America (“US”) have taken cognizance of the cases involving prisoners undergoing long-term sentences. This movement is ignited by an acknowledgment of vices in the existing order and outrage at the social evils resulting from unduly long incarcerations. These “second chances” legislation (“Acts”) function as a recourse to the old-aged, minors, and other ‘less-heinous’ criminals. These Acts have been furthered by the lawmakers because of the acute problem of increasing age and number of prisoners in the US. Despite the political strife between the Democrats and the Republicans, they have attracted sponsorship from both parties. However, the legal professionals advocate for a more stringent system that would not allow long-term prisoners to free themselves early from the clutches of law. They suggest that the Act would “retraumatize crime victims and further burden a strained court system.” Something similar is seen in India wherein, the Supreme Court of India directed the states and union territories to accord “top priority” to the issue of overcrowding of jails. Thus, these Acts can prove to be effective in the Indian paradigm as well. In light of these circumstances, it becomes imperative to analyse this elephant in the room. 

From Punitive to Restorative: The Dawn of “Second Chances” Legislation

For many decades, the US legal landscape was primarily dominated by the “tough on crime” approach. The stringent US policies such as the three-strikes laws, which have been in place since 1954 target criminals having committed too many crimes. These laws compel an offender who has committed the given offence to spend the rest of his/her life in prison with or without the chance of parole depending on the laws of the state. The intended aim of the laws is to enhance the severity of the penalty for those who keep reoffending even after being convicted of one or two grave crimes. This law was upheld in the case of Ewing v. California by the California District Court upheld California’s three-strikes law. Moreover, the US Supreme Court ruled that the sentence did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, affirming the state’s right to impose harsh penalties on repeat offenders. These harsh penalties ultimately and gradually led to mass incarceration. However, the worsening of prison conditions, overflowing of prisoners, existence of ethnic and racial disparities, and possession of unbridled power by the prosecutors have made it compulsory to address the human rights of the prisoners and furnish them with a haven. In the case of Brown v. Plata, the US Supreme Court stressed that California’s prison overcrowding violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and thus, must be reduced. Additionally, the staggering financial burden of managing an overcrowded prison system has become increasingly apparent. States were budgeting billions for imprisonment while school classrooms, hospitals, and welfare offices starved for funds. These factors led to the introduction of these Acts. 

Evaluating the Efficacy and Practicality: Realigning Justice Towards Rehabilitation 

The First Step Act of 2018 was enacted in the US to ameliorate the conditions of prisoners by tackling the challenges of mass incarceration. Although it failed to address the nuanced systemic issues holistically, it is seen as a seminal step in the fight for prisoners. Similarly, several states of the US have implemented their laws such as the Criminal Justice Reform of New Jersey (“Reform”), which overhauled the bail system of the state. The Bail Reform Act of 1984 mandates that prisoners pay the bail amount to secure their release from custody, often disregarding their inability to do so. While the Act aimed to reduce pre-trial incarceration, it also sought to ensure that individuals are not jailed solely due to their inability to pay bail. Thus, these reforms indicate that the US has seen a shift in the paradigm, aimed at the rehabilitation of prisoners. 

Correspondingly, the efforts to ameliorate the conditions of prisoners serving lengthy prison terms have drawn interest. The practicality of these Acts can be ascertained from the stress laid in current times on the human rights of an individual. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, also noted that “Prisoners have the same human rights as ordinary citizens”. Article 10(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states that “the essential aim of which shall be their reformation and social rehabilitation”. This supports the notion of offering reprieves or alternatives to prolonged or severe punishment. Similarly, Rule 58 of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners lays down that the prison should ensure “the reintegration of such persons into society upon release.” Thus, the Acts seem to be aligned with the international standards promoting the rehabilitation and safeguarding of the human rights of prisoners. 

The changes these Acts sought to bring are primarily to alleviate the issues of prison overcrowding as prisoners displaying signs of remorse would be rehabilitated to society. The US can reallocate limited public safety funds from incarcerating low-risk individuals to effective crime prevention efforts within the community. The nation’s legislative tracker shows that over a dozen states have passed “second chances” laws. These statutes differ, for instance, while some allow the courts to review the sentences, taking into consideration some factors such as the age of the offender or the time served among others, others allow the prosecutors to request the review of the sentences. In light of the current criminal reform undergoing in the US, it becomes critical to observe the impact of these Acts. 

Balancing Scales: Stakeholder Perspectives and Societal Ripples in the “Second Chances” Revolution

The US government has provided early-release avenues, such as compassionate release for centuries. The state legislators are now cognizant of the atrocities faced by the prisoners and are incorporating language in these Acts to mitigate the issues of long-term prisoners. The unanimity of the Democrats and Republicans on this matter highlights the will of the nation to encounter the changes the Acts bring with them. Something similar is noticed in the case of a Washington House bill, which proposed the establishment of a victim fund for catering to the needs of the survivors and the passing of laws that would let judges re-sentence long-term serving inmates, including those sentenced to life imprisonment. 

The prisoners and their families, undoubtedly get recourse to get themselves or their loved ones out of the clutches of law. The Acts reunite families, offer hope, and create an emotional impact on the prisoners and their families. If the sole breadwinner of a family is rehabilitated, then it also creates a profound financial impact. It alleviates the financial burdens on families who support incarcerated loved ones. These acts assist in avoiding the attainment of drastic punitive measures, especially when awarded to juveniles, or those who have spent many years in jail. Thus, the Acts are of utmost significance to the prisoners and their families. 

The Indian Paradigm

In the Indian scenario, the quandary of overcrowding of jails prevails throughout, creating dilapidated prison conditions. It is suggested that these Acts can ameliorate prison conditions as they can release old-aged prisoners, resulting in the maintenance of the sanctioned capacity of jails. This should be done keeping in mind the new laws and offences being framed at the national level, which could further add assault to injury if not vigilantly checked. Therefore, such attempts must be made in other jurisdictions including India. In the case of Khatri v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court of India underscored the rights of undertrial prisoners. It directed that undertrials should not be detained for extended periods without trial, leading to significant reforms in the treatment of prisoners. Similarly, in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, the Supreme Court of India addressed the menace of unnecessary arrests and detentions, potentially reducing prison overcrowding. It also laid down guidelines to prevent arbitrary arrests and to provide them assistance to help them to get restored in the society. Thus, the Acts can prove to be a revolutionary change in the Indian paradigm in light of these judicial pronouncements.

Moreover, releasing aged prisoners is an effective measure to the overcrowded Indian prisons problem that does not compromise the humanitarian consideration of the prisoners’ rights, cost and re-offending rates. This could help shift focus on youth rehabilitation, better prison administration, and reduced health hazards. Adhering to the standards such as the United Nations’ Nelson Mandela Rules, it guarantees the improvement of judicial activity, the opportunity to reunite with families, and an opportunity to reintegrate into society. Implementation should take into account the safety of the public as well as changes in the national laws for a proper penal reform. By tackling overcrowding this strategy not only prevents the spread of diseases within the prisons but also brings to the forefront the question of the reforms required in the criminal justice system. Finally, it paves way to a more civilized, rational and progressive concept of imprisonment in India.

Concluding Remarks: A Path Forward

Attempts to limit long years of incarceration have become priorities for the reform of criminal justice practices as well as ensuring that punishment is enlightened with a focus on the recognizable and inherent humanity of inmates as well as their potential for renewed, constructive living. The “second chances” policies draw as much passion as the original sentencing where critics are prosecutors, victims’ rights activists, and families who had to be exposed to a distressing event during resentencing. 

India’s prison reform, addressing overcrowding through elderly inmate release, balances humanitarian concerns with judicial efficiency. This approach, supported by landmark cases, aligns with international standards, reduces health risks, and promotes rehabilitation. It signifies a progressive shift towards a more humane, efficient criminal justice system, necessitating vigilant implementation amid evolving laws.

Further, it is suggested that these changes frequently encounter administrative and political obstacles. Policies must be objectively and consistently implemented in organisations to prevent fairness and equality violations. Countless individuals, advocacy groups, legal scholars, and community organizations also need to actively support such efforts and ensure the system’s responsiveness. Thus, states should endeavour to navigate the intricacies of sentence reduction policies. It becomes essential to focus on the availability, relevance, and emphasis from the first-person perspective. This anthology’s true-life accounts of redemption and hope serve as a passionate parable on the possibility of change and the value of a second chance.