THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND

Court rules

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RULES OF PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

Hon. ALAN M. WILNER, Chair

SANDRA F. HAINES, Reporter

COLBY L. SCHMIDT, Deputy Reporter

HEATHER COBUN, Assistant Reporter

MEREDITH A. DRUMMOND, Assistant Reporter

Judiciary A-POD

580 Taylor Avenue

Annapolis, Maryland 21401

(410) 260-3630

FAX: (410) 260-3631

July 20, 2021

The Honorable Mary Ellen Barbera,

Chief Judge

The Honorable Robert N. McDonald

The Honorable Shirley M. Watts

The Honorable Michele D. Hotten

The Honorable Joseph M. Getty

The Honorable Brynja M. Booth

The Honorable Jonathan Biran,

Judges

Your Honors:

The Rules Committee submits this, its Third Supplement to its Two Hundred and Seventh

Report. Item One in that Report consisted of proposed amendments to Rule 4-345 intended to

broaden the ability of the Circuit Courts to modify criminal sentences imposed by them on two

categories of inmates serving a sentence of 15 years or more: (1) inmates who committed the

crime(s) prior to reaching the age of 25 and have served the greater of 15 years or 60 percent of

the sentence, and (2) inmates who have served at least 15 years and have reached the age of 60.

For those inmates, the five-year limitation on the exercise of the court’s revisory power

and the procedural requirement that the inmate have filed a motion to revise the sentence within

90 days after the imposition of the sentence (Rule 4-345 (e)) would not apply and would not bar

relief.

The Court held an open hearing on the 207th Report on June 14, 2021, and, after listening

to presentations and considerable discussion among the members of the Court, remanded Item 1

to the Committee for the purpose of providing additional information and clarification in light of

questions and concerns raised by members of the Court.

Much of the discussion regarding Item 1 focused on the differences between the

Committee’s proposals and the provisions in Senate Bill 494, which was enacted over the

Governor’s veto during the 2021 Session of the General Assembly. Several judges wanted a

clearer explanation of why the Committee chose to depart from some of the statutory provisions

and how the Rule and the statute could be reconciled. Other judges wanted further information

regarding what other States had done with respect to revising sentences imposed on youthful

offenders and elderly prisoners and a fuller explanation of the scientific and statistical

conclusions that served as the basis for the proposed amendments. Questions were raised

regarding the impact of the provisions dealing with hearings on hearing provisions in Rules

governing other requests for the modification of criminal sentences. The purpose of this

Supplement is to address those questions and concerns.

Youthful Offenders

The basis for the Committee’s proposals with respect to youthful offenders was the

growing empirical evidence, documented both statistically and in medical, psychological, and

criminological journals and accepted by the United States Supreme Court, that (1) younger

people have “a lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility leading to

recklessness, impulsivity, and heedless risk-taking” and “lack the ability to extricate themselves

from horrific, crime-producing settings” (Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460, 471 (2012)) and (2)

that is due, at least in part, to the fact that the parts of the human brain that can ameliorate those

attributes are not fully developed during the teenage years and do not become fully developed

until an individual is into his or her 20’s. Although there appears to remain some debate about

what to call this transitional period beyond the age of 18 – young adulthood, emerging

adulthood, late adolescence – the literature and, more important perhaps, actual arrest data,

clearly support the view stated in Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for

Young Adults in the Juvenile and Adult Criminal Justice Systems, Council of State Governments

Justice Center (2015) at 2, that:

Contrary to conventional belief, age 18 is not a fixed point when adolescents

become fully mature adults. Rather, young adulthood is a transitional period that

can range from 18 to 24 and even beyond, during which significant brain

development is still occurring and decision-making abilities are not fully mature.

During this period of substantial growth and change, young adults exhibit clear

developmental differences from both youth and older adults. 1

See also Selen Siringil Perker and Lael Chester, Emerging Adults: A Distinct Population that

Calls for an Age-appropriate Approach by the Justice System, at p. 3 (June 2017); Jeffrey J.

The article cites as authority for that statement Ashley R. Smith, Jason Chein, and Laurence

Steinberg, “Peers Increase Adolescent Risk Taking Even When the Probabilities of Negative

Outcomes are Known,” Developmental Psychology, 50, no. 5, pp. 1564-1568 (May 2014);

Kathryn Monahan, Laurence Steinberg, Elizabeth Cauffman, and Edward Mulvey, “Psychosocial

Immaturity from Adolescence to Early Adulthood: Distinguishing Between AdolescenceLimited and Persistent Antisocial Behavior,” Development and Psychopathology, 25, n. 4, pp.

1093-1105 (November 2013); Elizabeth Shulman, Kathryn Paige Harden, Jason Chein, and

Laurence Steinberg, “The Development of Impulse Control and Sensation-Seeking In

Adolescence: Independent or Interdependent Processes?” Journal of Research on Adolescence,

26, n. 1 (October 2014); and Laurence Steinberg, “Should the Science of Adolescent Brain

Development Inform Public Policy?” 50 Ct. Rev. 70 (2014).

Arnett, Emerging Adulthood: A Theory of Development from the Late Teens through the

Twenties, American Psychologist (May 2000); Elizabeth S. Scott, Richard J. Bonnie, and

Laurence Steinberg, Young Adulthood as a Transitional Legal Category: Science, Social

Change, and Justice Policy, 85 Fordham L. Rev. 641, 642 (2016); Tirza A. Mullin, Eighteen Is

Not a Magic Number; Why the Eighth Amendment Requires Protection for Youth Aged Eighteen

to Twenty-Five, 53 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 807 (2020); Rolf Loeber and David Farrington, Study

Group on the Transitions Between Juvenile Delinquency and Adult Crime, Research Report

submitted to U.S. Department of Justice (2013); Laurence Steinberg, Elizabeth Cauffman, and

Kathryn V. Monahan, Psychosocial Maturity and Desistance from Crime in a Sample of Serious

Juvenile Offenders, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention, March 2015.

The conclusions reached in those articles are documented empirically by actual arrest

records. Attached to this Supplement as Appendix A is a December 2017 Report by the United

States Sentencing Commission, The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders,

which illuminates several facts in support of the Committee’s recommendations. Figure 1, on

page 11, is a bar graph that measures, by age, all arrests in the United States in 2016. It shows a

high rate of arrests of people throughout their twenties that begins to drop off significantly

thereafter.

The Committee acknowledges, of course, that all youngsters go through that brain

developmental process and that only a very small percentage of them allow their impulses to lead

them into criminal behavior. The Committee does not believe that the lack of a fully mature

frontal cortex is the cause of criminal behavior but does accept the conclusions cited that it can

explain some of the bad choices youngsters can make that cause harm to others and get

themselves in trouble. The paper published by the Justice Center of the Council of State

Governments (Reducing Recidivism and Improving Other Outcomes for Young Adults in the

Juvenile and Adult Criminal Justice Systems, supra, at 3), recognizes that, for both youth and

adults, criminal thinking and antisocial tendencies are often the primary causes of criminal

behavior, but that “young adults’ immaturity and susceptibility to peer influences makes them

even more prone to engage in this type of behavior.”

The findings and conclusions in these publications support the Committee’s choice of 25,

rather than 18, as the appropriate qualifying age. It was not just an arbitrary pick.

Senate Bill 494

When developing its proposals, with the assistance of the Attorney General’s Office and

the Public Defender’s Office, the Committee was aware that SB 494 was then pending in the

State Senate with an uncertain future. The Committee also was aware of this Court’s Opinion in

Carter, Bowie, McCullough v. State, 461 Md. 295 (2018) in which, after discussing Miller and

Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), regarding those attributes of the “emerging adult,” the

Court noted that, although the State is not required to “guarantee eventual freedom” to youthful

offenders who commit horrifying crimes and may turn out to be irredeemable, it must give

juvenile offenders “some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated

maturity and rehabilitation.” Id. at 311, quoting from Graham.

Although that statement was in the context of an initial sentence, the Committee suggests,

as a policy matter, that it is relevant to the opportunity for subsequent sentence review as well.

This Court has recognized on several occasions the generally accepted principle that one of the

objectives of sentencing is rehabilitation (Jackson v. State, 364 Md. 192, 199 (2001) and cases

cited therein), which is far more ascertainable when considering a revision of the sentence under

Rule 4-345 than when initially imposing it, at which point possible rehabilitation is usually

speculative at best.

The fate of SB 494 was not determined until after the Criminal Rules Subcommittee had

approved proposed amendments to the Rule. The subcommittee saw a need to address not just

the juvenile offender but the issue of the ageing prisoner as well, which the statute does not

address. That was based on data showing that many of those prisoners, who had served

substantial periods of long sentences, were no longer a danger to public safety and ought to have

the opportunity to seek release, free from the five-year and 90-day impediments, which they

could do nothing about. See infra.

The enactment of SB 494 did not change the Committee’s views. As enacted, it provided

no prospect of relief to the ageing prisoner and provided no relief to any youngster sentenced on

or after October 1, 2021. The Committee believed that the Court has the authority to amend its

own Rule to provide a broader opportunity for relief and that there was a solid basis for doing so.

In light of the Court’s comments, the Committee has revised the proposed amendments to

gratify completely the text of the statute by incorporating it by reference into the Rule as a new

subsection (f)(3). That would give inmates who committed their crime before reaching 18 and

were sentenced before October 1, 2021 the opportunity to seek relief under the statute as it is

written. Subsection (f)(4) would afford the prospect of relief to those who satisfy the criteria of

that subsection but who are excluded from the statute or who choose not to file under the

statute. 2

The argument has been made that there is an indirect conflict based on the assumption

that, by limiting the statute as it did, the Legislature did not want anyone else to be eligible for

sentence modification. Even if that were so, the Legislature has no Constitutional authority to

preclude the Court from amending its own Rule to limit impediments the Court itself imposed, as

a matter of Judicial policy and administration.

The Court asked as well about the service requirements of 15 years and 60 percent and

the qualifying age of 60 years. Any number would be arbitrary in a sense, but, using the charts

prepared by the Attorney General’s Office, those numbers avoided some anomalous “cliffs,”

The Committee did add two provisions to a proceeding under the statute that are not expressly

provided for in the statute. One, which would be required under the Rule on motions, is to

require that the inmate’s motion be served on the State’s Attorney. The other is to require the

clerk to forward a copy of the motion to the local county or district office of the Public Defender.

That is consistent with the practice under Rule 4-705 (b), dealing with motions for DNA testing.

It is likely that most of the petitioning inmates will be indigent.

seemed best to match what the Committee thought was fair, and provided the best opportunity

for a successful life upon release.

Hearing Requirements

There are several Rules dealing with motions for post-conviction relief. Rule 4-331

permits motions for a new trial based on some defect in the trial or on newly discovered

evidence. Section (f) of that Rule permits a hearing on such a motion and requires a hearing if

the motion is based on newly discovered evidence, was timely filed, and a hearing was

requested. Rule 4-709, which deals with motions for new trial based on DNA evidence, requires

a hearing in some circumstances, precludes one in others, and makes a hearing discretionary in

yet others. Rule 4-332, dealing with a writ of innocence, also involves a request for a new trial

or a new sentence. It requires a hearing if the motion complies with the requirements of the Rule

and a hearing was requested. Rule 4-406 requires a hearing on a petition for relief under the Post

Conviction Procedure Act if there is a dispute of fact. Current Rule 4-345, dealing with the

revisory power over sentences, precludes the court from modifying a sentence without a hearing

in open court but precludes a hearing from taking place unless the required notices to victims

were sent. SB 494 requires a hearing on a motion to reduce a sentence filed pursuant to the

statute.

As noted, the proposed amendments to Rule 4-345 would incorporate by reference the

provisions of SB 494 into the Rule as a new subsection (f)(3). Accordingly, an inmate who files

a motion for modification under the statute would be entitled to a hearing on that motion in

conformance with the statute. If a petition is filed pursuant to proposed subsection (f)(4), the

current provision of the Rule precluding the court from modifying, reducing, correcting, or

vacating a sentence without a hearing would remain subject to two exceptions: the court must

dismiss the petition without a hearing if it finds that the petitioner does not qualify as an eligible

petitioner, and the court may deny the petition without a hearing if it finds that, during the

preceding six years, a motion under subsection (f)(3) or a petition under subsection (f)(4) was

denied after a hearing. That provision would not apply to any of the other Rules noted above.

In order to preclude an inmate from bouncing back and forth with motions under the

statute and then petitions under the Rule, the Committee further proposes permitting a motion to

be denied without a hearing if a previous motion or petition was denied after a hearing within the

preceding three years. Permitting that to occur would constitute a vexatious burden on both the

court and on victims.

The Ageing Population

The latest data regarding inmate characteristics published by the Maryland Department of

Public Safety and Correctional Services (July 1, 2018) show that there were 902 prisoners over

60 years of age (4.8% of the total inmate population). The problems endemic to that population,

in terms of general health, dementia, depression, geriatric incontinence, mobility, and safety,

have been widely reported and are not seriously contested. See R. Aday, Aging Prisoners: Crisis

in American Corrections (2003); Jalila Jefferson Bullock, A Little Child Shall Lead Them:

Juvenile Justice, Aging Out, and the First Step Act, 87 Tenn. L. Rev. 569 (Spring 2020); Jalila

Jefferson Bullock, Quelling the Silver Tsunami: Compassionate Release of Elderly Offenders,

79 Ohio St. L. J. 937 (2018). Given the two current impediments to the exercise of the court’s

revisory power, the only current prospect of early release for those ageing prisoners, other than

institutional credits for good behavior or special projects, is either parole or some form of

compassionate leave, neither of which, so far, has assisted them.

Exercising revisory power under Rule 4-345 is not intended as traditional compassionate

leave or to relieve the Division of Correction from having to deal with the elderly prisoner, but

rather to release prisoners who no longer are a danger to public safety, who no longer need to be

in prison, and who can lead productive lives and become an asset rather than a detriment to

society. The criteria set forth in the proposed amendments, some taken from SB 494, make that

clear. The Ohio State Law Journal article notes the acceptance of the “aging out phenomenon”

even by the Federal Bureau of Prisons: “By their own admission,” the article reports, “‘age is one

of the biggest predictors of misconduct’ in prison and ‘inmates tend to “age out” of misconduct’

as they grow older. Older inmates ‘generally try to avoid conflict and “do their time” as quietly

and easily as possible,’ and utilize ‘passive precautionary behaviors such as keeping more to

oneself, avoiding certain areas of the prison, spending more time in one’s cell, and avoiding

activities’ to remain free from danger.” Quelling the Silver Tsunami, supra, 79 Ohio St.L. J. at

974.

One of the “Key Findings” of the United States Sentencing Commission in its 2017

Report (Appendix A) is that:

Older offenders were substantially less likely than younger offenders to recidivate

following release. Over an eight-year follow-up period, 13.4 percent of offenders

age 65 or older at the time of release were rearrested compared to 67.5 percent of

offenders younger than age 21 at the time of release. The pattern was consistent

across age groupings, and recidivism measured by rearrest, reconviction, and

incarceration declined as age increased.

Id. at 3. The Commission added that “[a]ge exerted a strong influence on recidivism across all

sentence length categories” and that “[o]lder offenders were less likely to recidivate after release

than younger offenders who had served similar sentences, regardless of the length of sentence

imposed.” Id.

Data from the DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in Quelling the Silver Tsunami,

supra, at 974-75 showed that the recidivism rate for all offenders released between 2005 and

2010 was 77% (re-arrest within five years after release). Data from 2015 showed a re-arrest rate

for inmates 50 and older released between 2006 and 2010 was 15% (re-arrest within three years

after release), none of whom were 70 or older. The conclusion was that “[e]lderly offenders

comprise an incredibly small percentage of recidivists.”

It is important to note that the recidivism data in those studies was based on all prisoners

released without regard to whether the release was a discretionary one, such as parole or judicial

action, or simply from serving the sentence. The modifications proposed in the amendments to

Rule 4-345 would be discretionary after consideration of the factors set forth in subsection (h)(4)

and the evidence bearing on those factors. It is reasonable to expect that, in deciding whether to

exercise their revisory power, judges will pay close attention to whether the petitioner is a good

candidate for modification, and that the recidivism rates would likely be lower than the ones

revealed in those studies.

A Maryland experience is consistent with what all of that data shows. In 1980, the Court,

in Stevenson v. State, 289 Md. 167 (1980), held invalid a jury instruction that had been almost

routine in criminal cases. Thirty-two years later, in Unger v. State, 427 Md. 383 (2012), the

Court held that the failure of defendants to object to that instruction in cases tried prior to 1981

did not constitute a waiver. As a result of that decision, 235 prisoners tried before 1981 became

entitled to a new trial. Most of those prisoners had been convicted of very serious crimes, were

serving life sentences, and were still incarcerated. Due to practical difficulties in being able to

retry them, agreements were reached that resulted in the release of 188 of those inmates. Those

released were between 51 and 85 years old. In a 2018 publication by the Justice Policy Institute,

it was reported that there was a “a very low recidivism rate.” The Ungers, 5 years and Counting,

Justice Policy Institute (2018) at 10, 11.

Other States

Finally, the Court inquired as to whether other States had adopted a similar opportunity

for relief. The Public Defender has identified the District of Columbia, Delaware, and Florida,

and a recommendation in the Model Penal Code. Their statutes are attached to this Supplement

as Appendix B.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/

______________________

Alan M. Wilner

Chair

AMW:sdm

Enclosures

cc: Suzanne C. Johnson, Clerk

MARYLAND RULES OF PROCEDURE

TITLE 4 – CRIMINAL CAUSES

CHAPTER 300 – TRIAL AND SENTENCING

AMEND Rule 4-345 by adding an exception to the five-year

limitation on the court’s revisory power set forth in section

(e); by transferring language from a Committee note following

section (e) to new subsection (f)(2) and a cross reference

following subsection (f)(2); by adding new subsection (f)(1)

generally regarding modification in special circumstances; by

adding a Committee note following subsection (f)(1); by adding

new subsection (f)(3) governing modification of a sentence

pursuant to a certain statute; by adding a Committee note

following subsection (f)(3); by adding new subsection (f)(4)

permitting a court, under certain circumstances, to modify a

sentence by reason of length of confinement and age; by adding

new subsection (g)(1), providing for where a motion or petition

is to be filed; by adding new subsection (g)(2) requiring a

certain attachment to a petition filed pursuant to subsection

(f)(4); by adding new subsection (g)(3) requiring the clerk to

forward a copy of a motion or petition by a self-represented

individual filed under subsection (f)(3) or (f)(4) to be

forwarded to the local Office of the Public Defender; by adding

new subsection (g)(4) providing for service of a motion or

petition filed under the Rule and permitting the State’s

Attorney to file a response within a certain time; by relettering current subsections (e)(2) and (e)(3) as subsections

(g)(5) and (g)(6), respectively, and adding clarifying language

to the subsections; by transferring the language of current

section (f) to new subsections (h)(1)(A), (h)(2), and (h)(5) and

adding clarifying language to the subsections; by adding new

subsections (h)(1)(B) and (C) regarding the conduct of a hearing

and the defendant’s presence at the hearing; by adding new

subsection (h)(3) governing dismissals and denials of motions

and petitions without a hearing; by adding a Committee note

following subsection (h)(3); by adding new subsection (h)(4)

listing factors for the court to consider in determining whether

to grant relief under subsection (f)(4); and by making stylistic

changes, as follows:

Rule 4-345.

(a)

SENTENCING – REVISORY POWER OF COURT

Illegal Sentence

The court may correct an illegal sentence at any time.

(b)

Fraud, Mistake, or Irregularity

The court has revisory power over a sentence in case of

fraud, mistake, or irregularity.

(c)

Correction of Mistake in Announcement

The court may correct an evident mistake in the

announcement of a sentence if the correction is made on the

record before the defendant leaves the courtroom following the

sentencing proceeding.

Cross reference: See State v. Brown, 464 Md. 237 (2019),

concerning an evident mistake in the announcement of a sentence.

(d)

Desertion and Non-Support Cases

At any time before expiration of the sentence in a case

involving desertion and non-support of spouse, children, or

destitute parents, the court may modify, reduce, or vacate the

sentence or place the defendant on probation under the terms and

conditions the court imposes.

(e)

Modification Upon Motion – Generally

(1) Generally

Upon a motion filed within 90 days after imposition of a

sentence (A)(1) in the District Court, if an appeal has not been

perfected or has been dismissed, and (B)(2) in a circuit court,

whether or not an appeal has been filed, the court has revisory

power over the sentence except that it may not increase the

sentence and, unless the court finds the special circumstances

set forth in subsection (f)(2), (f)(3), or (f)(4) of the Rule,

it may not revise the sentence after the expiration of five

years from the date the sentence originally was imposed on the

defendant and it may not increase the sentence.

Cross reference: Rule 7-112 (b).

Committee note: The court at any time may commit a defendant

who is found to have a drug or alcohol dependency to a treatment

program in the Maryland Department of Health if the defendant

voluntarily agrees to participate in the treatment, even if the

defendant did not timely file a motion for modification or

timely filed a motion for modification that was denied. See

Code, Health--General Article, § 8-507.

(f)

Modification in Special Circumstances

(1) Generally

Failure to have filed a timely motion under section (e)

of this Rule, or a previous grant or denial of a motion under

that section, shall not bar relief under any of the special

circumstances set forth in section (f) of this Rule. A

modification of a sentence pursuant to section (f) may not

include an increase in the length of the sentence.

Committee Note: Although the court’s authority to revise a

sentence on a motion filed pursuant to section (e) of this Rule

is limited to five years from the date the sentence originally

was imposed, no such limitation applies to the court’s revisory

power under section (f).

(2) Commitment for Drug or Alcohol Dependency Treatment

The court at any time may commit a defendant who is

found to have a drug or alcohol dependency to a treatment

program in the Maryland Department of Health if the defendant

voluntarily agrees to participate in the treatment.

Committee note: In order to implement a commitment under

subsection (f)(2), the court must suspend all of the sentence

except the time served and place the defendant on supervised

probation, a condition of which is the successful completion of

the commitment.

Cross Reference:

See Code, Health—General Article, § 8-507.

(3) Modification Pursuant to Code, Criminal Procedure

Article, §8-110

The court may modify a sentence imposed prior to October

1, 2021 on an individual who was convicted as an adult for an

offense committed when the individual was a minor in accordance

with the provisions of Code, Criminal Procedure Article, §8-110.

Committee Note: Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 8-110

permits certain inmates to file a motion to reduce the duration

of their sentence and provides certain requirements, conditions,

and procedures for the processing of such a motion. The

eligibility requirements for filing such a motion and some of

the requirements, conditions, and procedures for the processing

of that motion differ from those required for a petition filed

under subsection (f)(4) of this Rule. It is the intent that a

motion filed under subsection (f)(3) and a petition filed under

subsection (f)(4) be treated as completely separate and

independent proceedings, that a motion under subsection (f)(3)

be dealt with as required by the statute, and that a petition

filed under subsection (f)(4) be dealt with in accordance with

that subsection and sections (g) and (h) of this Rule.

(4) Modification by Reason of Length of Confinement and Age

(A) Subsection (f)(4) of this Rule applies to a defendant

who was sentenced to an aggregate unsuspended term of

imprisonment of more than 15 years and (i) committed the last

offense for which that sentence or any part of it was imposed

before reaching the age of 25 and has served the greater of 15

years or sixty percent of that sentence, or (ii) has served at

least 15 years of that sentence and has reached 60 years of age.

For purposes of this subsection only, a life sentence or an

aggregate unsuspended sentence of more than 40 years shall be

regarded as a sentence for 40 years.

A defendant who meets the

criteria of this paragraph is an eligible petitioner under

subsection (f)(4).

(B) Upon a petition filed by an eligible petitioner and

compliance with the requirements of sections (g) and (h) of this

Rule, the court may modify or reduce the sentence or place the

defendant on probation under the terms and conditions the court

imposes.

(g)

Procedure

(1) Where Filed

A motion or petition filed under this Rule shall be

filed in the court that entered the sentence sought to be

modified. If an aggregate sentence consists of two or more

sentences imposed by different courts, and relief from the

aggregate sentence is sought, a separate motion or petition

shall be filed with each court.

A court has revisory power

under this Rule only with respect to a sentence that it imposed.

(2) Attachment

A petition seeking relief under subsection (f)(4) of

this Rule shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the

petitioner’s Institutional Adjustment Record.

(3) Notice to Public Defender

If an individual seeking relief under subsection (f)(3)

or (f)(4) of this Rule is self-represented, the clerk promptly

shall forward a copy of the motion or petition to the local

county or district Office of the Public Defender.

(4) Service; Response

A motion or petition filed under this Rule shall be

served on the State’s Attorney for the county.

The State’s

Attorney may file a response within 30 days after service of the

motion or petition.

(2)(5) Notice to Victims

Whether or not the State’s Attorney files a response,

The the State's Attorney shall give notice of a motion or

petition filed under this Rule to each victim and victim's

representative who has filed a Crime Victim Notification Request

form pursuant to Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 11-104 or

who has submitted a written request to the State's Attorney to

be notified of subsequent proceedings as provided under Code,

Criminal Procedure Article, § 11-503 that states (A) that a

motion or petition to modify, vacate, or reduce a sentence has

been filed; (B) that the motion or petition has been denied

without a hearing or the date, time, and location of the

hearing; and (C) if a hearing is to be held, that each victim or

victim's representative may attend and testify.

(3)(6) Inquiry by Court

Except as provided in subsection (h)(1), Before before

considering a motion or petition under this Rule, the court

shall inquire if a victim or victim's representative is present.

If one is present, the court shall allow the victim or victim's

representative to be heard as allowed by law. If a victim or

victim's representative is not present and the case is one in

which there was a victim, the court shall inquire of the State's

Attorney on the record regarding any justification for the

victim or victim's representative not being present, as set

forth in Code, Criminal Procedure Article, § 11-403 (e). If no

justification is asserted or the court is not satisfied by an

asserted justification, the court may postpone the hearing.

(f)(h)

Open Court Hearing

(1) When required

(A) The court may modify, reduce, correct, or vacate a

sentence under this Rule only on the record in open court, and

after hearing from the defendant movant or petitioner, the State

State’s Attorney, and from each victim or victim's

representative who requests present have been afforded an

opportunity to be heard.

The defendant may waive the right to

be present at the hearing.

(B) The hearing may be held in open court or remotely in

accordance with procedures set forth in Rules 2-804 through 2806.

this Rule has a right to be present at the hearing. The

petitioner may not waive that right unless (i) the petitioner is

not capable of appearing and effectively participating at the

hearing, or (ii) the court permits the waiver.

An individual

seeking relief under any other section of this Rule may waive

the right to be present at the hearing.

(2) Condition

No hearing shall be held on a motion or petition to

modify or reduce the sentence until the court determines that

the notice requirements in subsection (e)(2)(g)(5) of this Rule

have been satisfied.

(3) When not required

(A) A motion seeking relief under section (a), (b), (c),

(d), or (e) of this Rule may be denied without a hearing.

(B) The court shall deny a motion filed under subsection

(f)(3) without a hearing if the court finds in a written order

filed in the record that:

(i) the motion was filed less than three years after the

court denied or granted in part a motion or petition filed under

subsection (f)(3) or (f)(4); or

(ii) the court has previously denied or granted in part

an aggregate total of three motions or petitions filed under

subsection (f)(3) or (f)(4).

subsection (f)(4) without a hearing if the court finds in a

written order filed in the record that the petitioner does not

qualify as an eligible petitioner.

Committee note: The court may hold a hearing on a petition

filed under subsection (f)(4) if there is insufficient

information to allow the court to determine whether the

petitioner qualifies as an eligible petitioner.

(D) The court may deny a petition filed under subsection

(f)(4) without a hearing if, during the preceding six years, a

motion under subsection (f)(3) or a petition under subsection

(f)(4) of this Rule was denied after a hearing.

(4) Factors Relevant to Granting Relief on a Petition

The court may grant relief under subsection (f)(4) if it

determines that the individual is not a danger to the public and

the interests of justice will be better served by a reduced or

modified sentence. In determining whether to grant relief under

subsection (f)(4) of this Rule, the court shall consider (A) the

Institutional Adjustment Record of the petitioner filed with the

petition; (B) the petitioner’s plans for housing, education, and

employment if released; (C) whether, if the petitioner is

released, there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner

will be a danger to a victim, another person, or the community;

(D) if the petitioner is to be released on probation, any

conditions recommended by the Division of Parole and Probation,

the State’s Attorney, or a victim; and (E) any other factor the

court deems relevant.

(5) Decision; Reasons

If the court grants the motion or petition, the court

ordinarily shall prepare and file or dictate into the record a

statement setting forth the reasons on which the ruling is

based. When the court rules on the merits of a petition filed

pursuant to subsection (f)(4) of this Rule, it shall issue a

written decision addressing the factors in subsection (h)(4) of

this Rule.

Cross reference: See Code, Criminal Law Article, § 5-609.1

regarding an application to modify a mandatory minimum sentence

imposed for certain drug offenses prior to October 1, 2017, and

for procedures relating thereto.

Source: This Rule is derived in part from former Rule 774 and

M.D.R. 774, and is in part new.

APPENDIX A

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

APPENDIX A

U N I T E D S TAT E S S E N T E NC I NG COM M I S S ION

United States Sentencing Commission

One Columbus Circle, N.E.

Washington, DC 20002

www.ussc.gov

William H. Pryor, Jr.

Acting Chair

Rachel E. Barkow

Commissioner

Charles R. Breyer

Commissioner

Danny C. Reeves

Commissioner

Zachary C. Bolitho

Ex Officio

J. Patricia Wilson Smoot

Ex Officio

Kenneth P. Cohen

Staff Director

Glenn R. Schmitt

Director

Office of Research and Data

December 2017

Kim Steven Hunt, Ph.D., Senior Research Associate, Office of Research and Data

Billy Easley II, J.D., Legislative Affairs Specialist, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

Part Four

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

DEFINING AND MEASURING

RECIDIVISM

CHARACTERISTICS OF

RECIDIVISM STUDY GROUP

INTRODUCTION TO AGE AND

RECIDIVISM AMONG FEDERAL

OFFENDERS

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Part Five

Part Six

Part Seven

Part Eight

RECIDIVISM RATES AMONG

FEDERAL OFFENDERS BY AGE

CONCLUSION

ENDNOTES

APPENDIX

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Part One

Executive Summary

Part One:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The United States Sentencing Commission1 began studying recidivism

shortly after the enactment of the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (“SRA”),

and has issued several recent publications examining recidivism rates

among federal offenders released in 2005. The Commission’s first report in

this series, Recidivism Among Federal Offenders: A Comprehensive Overview

(“Recidivism Overview Report”), was released in March 2016 and discussed

this research project in greater detail. As noted in the previous reports in this

series,2 recidivism information is central to three of the primary purposes of

punishment described in the SRA—specific deterrence, incapacitation, and

rehabilitation—all of which focus on prevention of future crimes through

correctional intervention. Information about recidivism is also relevant to the

Commission’s obligation to formulate sentencing policy that “reflect[s], to the

extent practicable, advancements in knowledge of human behavior as it relates

to the sentencing process.”3 Considerations of recidivism by federal offenders

were also central to the Commission’s initial work in developing the Guidelines

Manual’s criminal history provisions4 as well as its ongoing work.5

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

The Commission’s current recidivism research substantially expands on the

scope of previous Commission recidivism projects. In addition to a different set

of offenders—U.S. citizen federal offenders released in 2005—the current study

group (25,431 offenders) is much larger than those in previous Commission

studies. A larger study group allows for data analysis across many different

subgroups of federal offenders, including those sentenced under different

provisions in the guidelines.

This report is the fourth in this series and focuses on the relationship

between age at release and recidivism. This report examines the impact of the

aging process on federal offender recidivism and, once age is accounted for, the

impact of other offense and offender characteristics.

Key Findings

The key findings of the Commission’s study of federal offenders’ recidivism

by age at release are that:

•

Older offenders were substantially less likely than younger

offenders to recidivate following release. Over an eight-year follow-up

period, 13.4 percent of offenders age 65 or older at the time of release

were rearrested compared to 67.6 percent of offenders younger than

age 21 at the time of release. The pattern was consistent across age

groupings, and recidivism measured by rearrest, reconviction, and

reincarceration declined as age increased.

•

For federal offenders under age 30 at the time of release, over

one-fourth (26.6%) who recidivated had assault as their most common

new charge. By comparison, for offenders 60 years old or older at the

time of release, almost one quarter (23.7%) who recidivated had a

public order offense6 as their most serious new charge.

•

Age and criminal history exerted a strong influence on

recidivism. For offenders in Criminal History Category I, the rearrest

rate ranged from 53.0 percent for offenders younger than age 30 at

the time of release to 11.3 percent for offenders age 60 or older. For

offenders in Criminal History Category VI, the rearrest rate ranged

from 89.7 percent for offenders younger than age 30 at the time of

release to 37.7 percent for offenders age 60 or older.

•

Education level influenced recidivism across almost all

categories. For example, among offenders under age 30 at the time

of release, college graduates had a substantially lower rearrest rate

(27.0%) than offenders who did not complete high school (74.4%).

Similarly, among offenders age 60 or older at the time of release,

college graduates had a somewhat lower rearrest rate (11.6%) than

offenders who did not complete high school (17.2%).

•

Age exerted a strong influence on recidivism across all

sentence length categories. Older offenders were less likely to

recidivate after release than younger offenders who had served similar

sentences, regardless of the length of sentence imposed. In addition,

for younger offenders there was some association between the length

of the original federal sentence and the rearrest rates, as younger

offenders with sentences of up to six months generally had lower

rearrest rates than younger offenders with longer sentences. However,

among all offenders sentenced to one year or more of imprisonment,

there was no clear association between the length of sentence and the

rearrest rate.

•

For certain major offense types, the type of federal offense that

offenders had committed also had an effect on recidivism across age

groups. For example, firearms offenders had a substantially higher

rearrest rate across all age categories than drug trafficking offenders,

who in turn had a higher rearrest rate across all age categories than

fraud offenders. For example, for offenders under age 30 at the time of

release, the rearrest rates were 79.3 percent (firearms), 62.5 percent

(drug trafficking), and 53.6 percent (fraud). Similarly, for offenders

age 60 and older at the time of release, the rearrest rates were 30.2

percent (firearms), 17.5 percent (drug trafficking), and 12.5 percent

(fraud).

•

At every age group, federal prisoners had a substantially

lower recidivism rate than state prisoners who also were released

in 2005 and tracked by the Bureau of Justice Statistics. For example,

for offenders age 24 or younger at the time of release, 63.2 percent

of federal prisoners were rearrested within five years compared to

over four-fifths (84.1%) of state prisoners. Like federal prisoners,

older state prisoners were less likely to recidivate than younger state

prisoners.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Part Two

Defining and Measuring Recidivism

Part Two:

DEFINING AND MEASURING RECIDIVISM

Defining and Measuring Recidivism

Recidivism “refers to a person’s relapse into criminal behavior, often after

the person receives sanctions or undergoes intervention for a previous crime.”7

Measuring recidivism informs decision making about issues such as pretrial

detention, appropriate sentence type and length, prisoner classification, prison

programming, and offender supervision in the community. It also allows

policymakers to evaluate the performance of the criminal justice system as

a whole.8 Recidivism is typically measured by criminal acts that resulted

in the rearrest, reconviction, and/or reincarceration of the offender over a

specified period of time. These are the three recidivism measures used in this

report, but the report primarily relies on the first—rearrest—with additional

data regarding reconviction and reincarceration reported in the Appendix.

Providing data about multiple measures of recidivism allows users to select the

performance measure best suited to their outcome of interest.

Reincarceration classifies a person as a recidivist if a conviction or revocation

resulted in a prison or jail sentence as punishment. The reincarceration measure

counts offenders who were reported as being incarcerated by the Federal

Bureau of Prisons, state prison, or local jail for any term of incarceration based

on their recidivism events. Incomplete criminal records also create missing

information about reincarceration.11

Reconviction classifies a person as a recidivist if an arrest resulted in a

subsequent judicial conviction.9 Violations and revocations of supervision are

not included in reconvictions since no formal prosecution occurred. While states

have improved the completeness of their criminal history records, a recent

federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an

arrest.10 Such gaps occurred in the criminal records used in this report, and lead

to an undercounting of reconvictions, because missing dispositions for rearrests

are treated as if reconviction and reincarceration did not occur.

In undertaking its current recidivism research, the Commission selected a

follow-up period of eight years. It considered all recidivism events (including

felonies, misdemeanors, and “technical” violations of the conditions of

supervision), except minor traffic offenses, which occurred over that eight-year

period. While this report includes summary findings using all three measures

(rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration), it primarily relies on rearrest

data in providing more detailed information about the recidivism of federal

offenders.

Rearrest classifies a person as a recidivist if he or she has been arrested for

a new crime after being released into the community directly on probation or

after serving a term of imprisonment. Rearrest also includes arrests for alleged

violations of conditions of federal probation, federal supervised release, or state

parole. The number of rearrests in the Commission’s analysis is based on the

number of unique arrest dates, regardless of the number of individual charges

arising from a single arrest event. Thus, if an offender was arrested on a single

occasion for both driving under the influence and possession of cocaine, that

arrest date would constitute a single rearrest event.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Many rearrests do not ultimately result in a reconviction or reincarceration

for reasons relating to procedural safeguards (e.g., the suppression of evidence

for an unconstitutional search or seizure), lack of sufficient evidence to

convict or revoke, and prosecutorial or judicial resource limitations. To the

extent that the rearrest event is an accurate indicator of relapse into criminal

behavior, excluding non-conviction or non-incarceration events will result

in underestimation of recidivism. Even using the least restrictive measure,

rearrest, does not count the full extent of offender recidivism, as many crimes

go unreported to police or, if reported, do not result in an arrest. For these

reasons, no measure is perfect, and reporting several measures provides a more

complete and nuanced picture of recidivism. The three measures overlap in

some areas—meaning all offenders who were reconvicted or reincarcerated also

were necessarily rearrested. Some offenders who were reconvicted, however,

were not reincarcerated. Generally speaking, however, the measure of rearrest

is larger than the measure of reconviction, which in turn is larger than the

measure of reincarceration.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Part Three

Introduction to Age and

Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Part Three:

INTRODUCTION TO AGE AND RECIDIVISM AMONG FEDERAL OFFENDERS

Age and Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

This report examines the impact of the aging process on recidivism by

federal offenders. First, recidivism rates are presented by age at release.

Next, the time to the first recidivism event is shown by age at release for

those offenders who recidivated. Studying the timing of recidivism can help

in understanding the process of desistance across various age cohorts. The

number of recidivism events and most serious type of post-release offense

among those who recidivated by age at release are also discussed. Contrasting

the number and nature of crimes committed across age groups may reveal more

information about the threat to public safety posed by various age groups as

well as the process of desisting from crime across the aging process.

The report then investigates the association between recidivism and factors

such as criminal history, demographic factors, offense characteristics, and

sentence length. This information is reported by age group in order to better

distinguish the impact of these factors while controlling for age at release.

As first noted in the Recidivism Overview Report, numerous recidivism

studies document well that older offenders are at lower risk for reoffending,12

and the Commission’s own research has confirmed this finding for federal

offender populations.13 The Commission’s study found that among all federal

offenders released into the community in 2005, those who were below age 21

at release had the highest rearrest rate at over two-thirds (67.6%). Conversely,

those oldest at age of release, over 60 years old, had the lowest recidivism rate

(16.0 %). For each age grouping shown in the previous report, the older the age

group, the lower the rearrest rate. The same pattern held for reconviction and

reincarceration rates.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

According to the National Institute of Justice, “the prevalence of offending

tends to increase from late childhood, peak in the teenage years (from 15 to

19) and then decline in the early 20s.”14 Scholars have used official arrest data

collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to construct an age-crime

curve15 which demonstrates graphically the relationship between age and

arrests. National arrest data collected by the FBI in the Uniform Crime Report

(UCR) since 193016 and compiled in the FBI’s Crimes in the United States report

since 199517 has consistently supported this conclusion concerning age and

crime.

Figure 1 shows a comparison of arrests by five-year age intervals beginning

at age 20 for all 2016 U.S. arrests reported to the FBI and all adult arrests

reported in criminal history records provided by the FBI for federal offenders

released in 2005, by identical age groupings.18 To construct the federal offender

data, the Commission aggregated all arrest incidents from the federal offenders’

entire criminal history as reported on state and federal records.19 That is, each

arrest charge is collected and grouped by the age of the offender at the time of

that arrest, in the same manner as set forth in Table 20 of the 2016 Crimes in the

United States report.

Figure 1 demonstrates the close tie between older age and declining arrests,

in both the FBI’s UCR20 and prior arrest data obtained on federal offenders from

the FBI’s Interstate Identification Index (III) system, which is a national index

of criminal histories. In general, the Commission found that total adult arrests

for federal offenders were highest in the 20-24 age group, and declined sharply

thereafter. The national FBI adult arrests in 2016 display the same pattern.

Since arrests are closely associated with age, it is not surprising that federal

offenders who enter and exit the federal system at younger ages are more

prone to recidivate. In the following sections, this report examines the age

and recidivism connection in greater detail. Then this report analyzes age in

combination with other offense and offender characteristics. This combination

in effect statistically controls for age and reveals the influence, or absence of

influence, of other factors which may be thought to impact recidivism over and

above the influence of aging.

For both federal offenders’ prior arrest history and national 2016 arrests as

reported by the FBI, older age groups had fewer arrests. While there are vast

differences among individuals which are not explained by age, age is generally

a strong factor influencing the likelihood of committing crime, although the

reasons for this are complex.21

Fig. 1 Total Arrests by Age

All 2016 U.S. Arrests Compared to Recidivism Study Offenders’ Arrest Records

2016 Crime in the United States (FBI) Arrests by Age

1,600,000

1,400,000

1,200,000

1,000,000

800,000

600,000

400,000

200,000

20 to 24

25 to 29

30 to 34

35 to 39

Lifetime Arrests by Federal Offenders Released in 2005

80,000

40 to 44

45 to 49

50 to 54

40 to 44

45 to 49

50 to 54

55 to 59

60 to 64

65 and over

70,000

60,000

50,000

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

20 to 24

25 to 29

30 to 34

35 to 39

55 to 59

60 to 64

65 and over

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT and U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime

Report, Crime in the United States (2015). The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Part Four

Characteristics of

Recidivism Study Group

Part Four:

CHARACTERISTICS OF RECIDIVISM STUDY GROUP

Characteristics of Recidivism Study Group

Fig. 2 Age at Release for Recidivism Study Offenders

This report examines 25,431 offenders who were released into the

community (either from federal prison or on to probation) in calendar year

2005 and, as discussed in the Recidivism Overview Report, were federal

offenders:

•

who are citizens;

•

whose pre-sentence investigation report was submitted to the

Commission;

•

whose federal sentence was not vacated.

Offender Demographics

The largest age cohort in this study was those offenders aged 30 to 34

(18.3% of the total) at the time they were released from federal custody into

the community (Figure 2). The next largest cohorts at time of release were

offenders aged 25 to 29 (16.4%) and 35 to 39 (15.3%).

Among the racial and ethnic groups analyzed, most White offenders were

40 years or older (51.6%) at the time of their release (Figure 3). This is the

only racial group in the study with more than half of offenders over the age of

40. Black and Hispanic offenders were concentrated in the younger than 40 age

cohorts, with Hispanic offenders the youngest of all racial groups (70.9% were

younger than 40 at the time of release). The Other race category, which includes

American Indians, Alaskan Natives and Asians were also mostly below age 40

(62.9%).

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Younger than 21 Years

1.6%

(n=398)

21 to 24 Years

8.8%

(n=2,234)

25 to 29 Years

16.4%

(n=4,164)

45 to 49 Years

10.1%

(n=2,569)

40 to 44 Years

13.1%

(n=3,325)

who have valid FBI numbers which could be located in criminal

history repositories (in at least one of the 50 states, DC, or

federal records);

who were not reported dead, escaped, or detained; and

65 Years or

Older

2.1%

(n=536)

50 to 54 Years

6.8%

(n=1,734)

who re-entered the community after discharging their

sentences of incarceration or by commencing a term of

probation in 2005;

The advantages of this large study group are substantial. Having several

thousand offenders allows more precise estimates of recidivism rates across

different subgroups. For example, there are 1,048 released offenders who were

older than 60 years of age.

55 to 59 Years

4.9%

(n=1,235)

60 to 64 Years

2.6%

(n=668)

30 to 34 Years

18.3%

(n=4,635)

35 to 39 Years

15.3%

(n=3,888)

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The

Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the

analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding.

Fig. 3 Race of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release

60 Years

or Older

7.6%

White

n=11,074

50 to 59

Years

16.2%

40 to 49

Years

27.8%

50 to 59

Years

7.5%

60 Years or Hispanic

Older

n=4,508

2.8%

40 to 49

Years

18.7%

30 to 39

Years

32.9%

Younger

than 30

Years

20.5%

50 to 59

Years

8.4%

60 Years or Black

Older

n=8,607

2.2%

40 to 49

Years

19.6%

30 to 39

Years

27.9%

Younger than

30 Years

38.0%

50 to 59

Years

9.3%

40 to 49

Years

23.9%

60 Years or Other

n=1,174

Older

3.9%

Younger than

30 Years

28.0%

30 to 39

Years

41.9%

Younger than

30 Years

34.2%

30 to 39

Years

28.7%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were

missing information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding.

The average age of offenders at the time of release increased as educational

level increased (Figure 4). Offenders who did not complete high school were

the youngest group at the age of release, with 68.5 percent below the age of 40.

College graduates were significantly older on average than offenders in other

educational cohorts, with around 71.0 percent of college graduates age 40 or

older.

Female offenders were slightly younger on average than male offenders

at the time of release (Figure 5). Specifically, a greater proportion of female

offenders were younger than 30 at the time of release, 31.2 percent, compared

to 25.8 percent of male offenders.

Fig. 4 Education of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release

Fig. 5 Gender of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release

Less Than High School

n=8,641

60 Years or

Older

50 to 59 4.0%

Years

8.1%

Younger

than 30

Years

35.5%

40 to 49

Years

19.4%

30 to 39

Years

33.0%

60 Years or

Older

4.6%

50 to 59

Years

13.8%

40 to 49

Years

24.3%

Some College

n=5,399

Younger than

30 Years

21.7%

30 to 39

Years

35.6%

60 Years or

Older

3.8%

50 to 59

Years

10.2%

High School Graduate

n=9,309

Younger than

30 Years

25.9%

40 to 49

Years

24.9%

60 Years or

Older

12.8%

50 to 59

Years

29.3%

30 to 39

Years

35.1%

College Graduate

n=1,879

Younger

than 30

Years

5.9%

30 to 39

Years

23.0%

60 Years or

Older

5.1%

50 to 59 Years

11.8%

40 to 49

Years

23.1%

Male

n=20,723

Younger than

30 Years

25.8%

30 to 39 Years

34.2%

60 Years or

Older

3.2%

Female

n=4,654

50 to 59 Years

11.1%

Younger than

30 Years

31.2%

40 to 49

Years

23.9%

30 to 39 Years

30.7%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding.

40 to 49

Years

28.9%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Part Four:

CHARACTERISTICS OF RECIDIVISM STUDY GROUP

Federal Offense Type and Criminal History

Drug trafficking offenders were generally the youngest group of offenders

at the time of release (Figure 6). Of all drug trafficking offenders, 68.0 percent

were below the age of 40. By comparison, 66.5 percent of firearms offenders

and 60.3 percent of robbery offenders were below the age of 40. Fraud

offenders were the oldest group with 55.0 percent age 40 or older at the time of

release.

Fig. 6 Primary Offense Type of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release

60 Years or

Older

3.0%

50 to 59

Years

8.3%

Drug Trafficking

60 Years

n=10,577

or Older

50 to 59 2.7%

Years

9.0%

60 Years

or Older

2.6%

40 to 49

Years

20.3%

60 Years or

Older

8.6%

50 to 59

Years

18.0%

40 to 49

Years

28.4%

Younger than

30 Years

29.4%

30 to 39 Years

38.6%

Fraud

n=3,440

Younger than

30 Years

14.9%

30 to 39

Years

30.2%

50 to 59

Years

9.8%

40 to 49

Years

27.1%

Robbery

n=1,098

30 to 39

Years

34.2%

Younger than

30 Years

33.3%

30 to 39 Years

33.2%

All Other

n=7,031

50 to 59

Years

14.5%

Younger than

30 Years

25.8%

40 to 49

Years

24.8%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding.

Fig. 7 Weapon Enhancement of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release

Firearms

n=3,238

40 to 49

Years

22.3%

Younger

than 30

Years

26.1%

60 Years or

Older

7.1%

Over two-thirds (67.0%) of offenders subject to weapons enhancements

were younger than age 40 at the time of release compared to 59.6 percent of

offenders who were not subject to such enhancements (Figure 7).

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

30 to 39

Years

27.9%

60 Years or

Older

2.6%

50 to 59 Years

8.9%

Weapon Enhancement

n=2,498

Younger than

30 Years

26.4%

40 to 49

Years

21.5%

60 Years or

Older

5.0%

50 to 59 Years

12.0%

No Weapon Enhancement

n=22,888

Younger than

30 Years

26.8%

40 to 49

Years

23.4%

30 to 39 Years

40.6%

30 to 39 Years

32.8%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding.

Overall, the age of offenders increased as the offenders’ prior criminal

history increased (Figure 8). A federal offender’s prior criminal history score

is calculated under Chapter Four of the Guidelines Manual and assigned one of

six Criminal History Categories (CHC), CHC I through VI, with CHC VI being the

highest prior record category.22 Category I had a larger proportion of offenders

younger than 30 years (27.8%) than Category VI (11.1%).23 Conversely,

Category VI had the largest group of offenders age 40 or older (47.1%).

Fig. 8 Criminal History Category of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release

60 Years

or Older

6.5%

Category I

n=13,549

50 to 59

Years

13.9%

30 to 39

Years

28.7%

40 to 49

Years

23.1%

50 to 59

Years

7.7%

60 Years

or Older

2.1%

40 to 49

Years

20.0%

Younger

than 30

Years

27.8%

Category IV

n=1,995

Younger

than 30

Years

28.5%

30 to 39

Years

41.9%

60 Years or Older Category II

n=3,082

3.4%

50 to 59

Years

10.3%

40 to 49

Years

21.9%

60 Years Category V

or Older

n=1,119

50 to 59 1.6%

Years

8.2%

40 to 49

Years

25.2%

Younger than

30 Years

29.0%

30 to 39

Years

35.4%

Younger

than 30

Years

21.8%

30 to 39

Years

43.2%

60 Years

or Older

2.9%

50 to 59

Years

8.1%

Fig. 9 Base Offense Level of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release

Category III

n=3,610

40 to 49

Years

20.7%

50 to 59

Years

11.7%

The offender’s base offense level is determined by applying the Chapter Two

guideline level associated with the conviction offense (Figure 9). A high base

offense level, defined as a base offense level of 32 or higher, was associated with

a high percentage of offenders between the ages of 30 to 39. Offenders between

the ages of 30 to 39 were the only age group to increase consistently across

all three categories as shown in Figure 9, from 29.8 percent to 45.4 percent.

Offenders younger than 30 reached a high of 31.2 percent in the base offense

level 26 to 31 category but decreased to 18.1 percent among the most serious

category of offenders with a base offense level between 32 and 43.

60 Years Category VI

n=1,921

or Older

2.8%

40 to 49

Years

32.6%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding.

Younger

than 30

Years

30.3%

30 to 39

Years

38.0%

Younger than

30 Years

11.1%

50 to 59

Years

12.9%

60 Years or

Older

2.7%

50 to 59

Years

8.5%

40 to 49

Years

20.2%

30 to 39

Years

41.8%

BOL 26 to 31

n=4,463

60 Years or

Older

5.6%

40 to 49

Years

24.1%

Younger

than 30

Years

31.2%

30 to 39

Years

37.5%

BOL 6 to 25

n=16,937

Younger than

30 Years

27.6%

30 to 39

Years

29.8%

60 Years or

Older

3.5%

BOL 32 to 43

n=3,967

50 to 59

Years

10.0%

40 to 49

Years

23.0%

Younger than

30 Years

18.1%

30 to 39

Years

45.4%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Part Four:

CHARACTERISTICS OF RECIDIVISM STUDY GROUP

Sentences Imposed

For statistical purposes, the Commission groups the type of federal sentence

originally imposed into four categories: prison only, prison and community

confinement, probation and confinement, and probation or fine only.24 Prison

only offenders were the youngest group at release in the Commission’s study,

with 61.9 percent of the offenders who received a prison only sentence under

the age of 40 (Figure 10). Offenders who served prison and community

confinement sentences were the oldest, with 48.1 percent age 40 or older.

Fig. 10 Sentence Type of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release

60 Years or

Older

4.1%

50 to 59

Years

11.0%

40 to 49

Years

23.0%

Prison Only

n=19,572

Younger than

30 Years

26.3%

30 to 39

Years

35.6%

Probation and Confinement

n=1,191

60 Years or

Older

7.3%

50 to 59

Years

15.0%

40 to 49

Years

23.7%

Younger than

30 Years

28.6%

30 to 39

Years

25.4%

Prison/Community Split Sentence

n=973

Younger than

60 Years or

Older

6.2%

30 Years

26.8%

50 to 59

Years

14.4%

30 to 39

Years

25.1%

40 to 49

Years

27.5%

60 Years or

Older

6.8%

Probation or Fine Only

n=3,613

Younger

than 30

Years

28.8%

50 to 59

Years

14.0%

40 to 49

Years

23.1%

30 to 39

Years

27.4%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that

were missing information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

The Commission also considered the length of the federal sentence imposed

on those in the study group. Offenders serving the longest sentences were the

oldest at time of release (Figure 11). For offenders who served a sentence of

120 months or more, the proportion of offenders who were age 40 or older at

the time they were released was 48.6 percent, higher than any other group.

In contrast, among offenders who served a sentence of 60 to 119 months, the

proportion age 40 or older was 36.3 percent, the same proportion as offenders

who served a sentence of 24 to 59 months.

Fig. 11 Length of Federal Sentence of Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release

60 Years

or Older

5.3%

Up to 6 Months

n=1,047

50 to 59

Years

14.0%

40 to 49

Years

26.1%

60 Years or

Older

4.0%

50 to 59

Years

10.6%

40 to 49

Years

21.7%

Younger than

30 Years

28.1%

30 to 39

Years

26.6%

24 to 59 Months

n=8,011

Younger than

30 Years

30.7%

30 to 39

Years

33.0%

60 Years

or Older

5.3%

6 to 11 Months

n=760

50 to 59

Years

9.1%

40 to 49

Years

25.0%

60 Years 60 to 119 Months

or Older

n=4,548

3.4%

50 to 59

Years

9.8%

40 to 49

Years

23.1%

Younger than

30 Years

34.7%

30 to 39

Years

25.9%

Younger than

30 Years

21.9%

30 to 39

Years

41.8%

60 Years

or Older

4.7%

50 to 59

Years

11.0%

12 to 23 Months

n=3,644

Younger than

30 Years

33.0%

40 to 49

Years

21.8%

60 Years

or Older

5.1%

50 to 59

Years

14.7%

30 to 39

Years

29.6%

120 Months or More

Younger than

n=2,521

30 Years

7.3%

40 to 49

Years

28.8%

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis. Totals may not sum to 100.0% due to rounding.

30 to 39

Years

44.0%

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Part Five

Recidivism Rates Among

Federal Offenders by Age

Part Five:

RECIDIVISM RATES AMONG FEDERAL OFFENDERS BY AGE

Recidivism Rates Among Federal Offenders by Age

The Commission found that younger offenders were more likely to be

rearrested than older offenders, were rearrested faster than older offenders,

and committed more serious offenses after they were released than older

offenders. As shown in Table 1, the Commission’s research shows that the

younger than 30 age group had the highest rearrest rate (64.8%) and the rate

declined with each age group that follows to a low of 16.4 percent. Younger

cohorts had more arrest events during the eight-year follow-up period, a median

of three arrest events for the younger than 30 age group compared to one event

for those age 50 and older.

The Commission ranked new offenses in order of seriousness for those who

reoffended. The most serious type of offense likely to cause rearrest also varied

by age, from assault (for all age groups under the age of 50) to public order

offenses (for age groups 50 and older).

Table 1 Overview of Age and Recidivism Study Findings

Rearrest Recidivism Measure

Percent

Median Time to Recidivism Event

Median Number of Recidivism Events

Most Serious Post-Release Event

Younger than 30

Years

n=6,796

30 to 39 Years

n=8,523

40 to 49 Years

n=5,894

50 to 59 Years

n=2,969

64.8%

53.6%

43.2%

26.8%

17 Months

Assault

(26.6%, n=1,170)

22 Months

Assault

(24.1%, n=1,102)

22 Months

90%

80%

Median time to

recidivism

70%

Younger than 30 Years, 64.8%

Age 30 to 39 Years, 53.6%

Age 40 to 49 Years, 43.2%

40%

16.4%

Other Public

Assault

Order Offense

(20.3%, n=517)

(22.5%, n=179)

Other Public

Order Offense

(23.7%, n=47)

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis.

100%

50%

60 Years or

Older

n=1,204

28 Months

Fig. 12 Time to First Rearrest of Recidivism Study Offenders

60%

25 Months

Figure 12 identifies the median time of rearrest for each age cohort. The

measure of time to first recidivism event can be useful in distinguishing

offenders who recidivate early from those who eventually recidivate, but are

apparently crime-free for a longer interval. The Commission found that the

median amount of time between an offender’s release and his or her rearrest,

which is highlighted on each timeline, reflected the greater tendency for

younger cohorts to recidivate. Offenders who were younger than 30 when

they were released had the shortest median time to rearrest (17 months).

Conversely, the oldest offenders in the study, those 60 years and older, had the

longest time to rearrest (28 months).

Age 50 to 59 Years, 26.8%

30%

Age 60 Years or Older, 16.4%

20%

10%

Years After Release

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were

missing information necessary to perform the analysis.

Figure 13 presents a more detailed breakdown of rearrest rate by 11 age

groups. The Commission’s study revealed that the rearrest rate was highest

among offenders younger than 21 (67.6%) and those between the ages of 21 to

24 years old (66.6%) and declined in each subsequent age group.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Fig. 13 Rearrest Rates for Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release

Fig. 15 Reincarceration Rates for Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

67.6%

66.6%

50%

63.6%

80%

56.5%

40%

70%

50.1%

46.5%

30%

60%

38.8%

20%

10%

Younger

than 21

Years

n=398

21 to 24

Years

n=2,234

25 to 29

Years

n=4,164

30 to 34

Years

n=4,635

35 to 39

Years

n=3,888

40 to 44

Years

n=3,325

45 to 49

Years

n=2,569

30.1%

50 to 54

Years

n=1,734

50%

22.2%

55 to 59

Years

n=1,235

40%

18.9%

60 to 64

Years

n=668

13.4%

65 Years or

Older

n=536

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were

missing information necessary to perform the analysis.

Fig. 14 Reconviction Rates for Recidivism Study Offenders by Age at Release

100%

90%

80%

70%

50%

40%

48.5%

48.4%

42.7%

30%

36.0%

20%

10%

Younger

than 21

Years

n=398

21 to 24

Years

n=2,234

25 to 29

Years

n=4,164

30 to 34

Years

n=4,635

31.3%

35 to 39

Years

n=3,888

30.3%

40 to 44

Years

n=3,325

22.3%

45 to 49

Years

n=2,569

15.9%

50 to 54

Years

n=1,734

12.2%

11.4%

55 to 59

Years

n=1,235

60 to 64

Years

n=668

38.6%

33.7%

20%

10%

Younger

than 21

Years

n=398

21 to 24

Years

n=2,234

25 to 29

Years

n=4,164

27.7%

30 to 34

Years

n=4,635

24.2%

35 to 39

Years

n=3,888

23.0%

40 to 44

Years

n=3,325

17.4%

45 to 49

Years

n=2,569

12.8%

50 to 54

Years

n=1,734

9.0%

8.8%

55 to 59

Years

n=1,235

60 to 64

Years

n=668

4.1%

65 Years or

Older

n=536

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis.

The reconviction rate is highest among offenders younger than 21 (48.5%)

and those between the ages of 21 to 24 years old (48.4%) and declined in each

subsequent age group. Time to reconviction expanded with age and severity

of reconviction offense declined with age, in a pattern like that shown with

rearrest in Figure 14.25

60%

30%

35.7%

6.5%

The reincarceration rate was highest among those between the ages of 21

to 24 years old (38.6%) and declined in each subsequent age group.26 Time

to reincarceration expands with age and severity of reincarceration offense

declined with age, in a pattern like that shown with rearrest in Figure 15.27

Demographics

White offenders had the lowest rearrest rate overall, starting with 59.1

percent for the youngest age group and declining to a low of 15.7 percent in

the 60 years or older age cohort (Figure 16 on the next page). Black offenders

had the highest rearrest rate overall, starting with 72.7 percent in the youngest

age cohort, which is the highest recidivism rate among all age categories. The

other racial category, which includes American Indians, Alaskan Natives and

Asians, had the second highest overall rearrest rate, starting with a 65.1 percent

rearrest rate in the youngest age cohort before declining.

65 Years or

Older

n=536

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Part Five:

RECIDIVISM RATES AMONG FEDERAL OFFENDERS BY AGE

Male offenders had a higher rearrest rate than female offenders in every age

category (Figure 18). In the younger than 30 age cohort, men had a 69.5 percent

rearrest rate compared to 47.6 percent for women. The rearrest rate declined

for both male and female offenders with each subsequent age group.

Fig. 16 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Race and Age at Release

100%

90%

Younger than 30 Years

30 to 39 Years

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

50 to 59 Years

52.2%

36.0%

39.4%

23.7%

15.7%

20%

10%

Black

100%

50.5%

48.7%

90%

42.0%

39.2%

24.4%

19.1%

19.4%

White

65.1%

61.2%

59.9%

48.9%

60 Years or Older

Fig. 18 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Gender and Age at Release

72.7%

59.1%

30%

40 to 49 Years

80%

22.9%

10.9%

Hispanic

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

74.4%

63.0%

30 to 39 Years

40 to 49 Years

62.9%

55.0%

51.5%

31.0%

17.2%

Less than High School

45.0%

30.6%

18.8%

High School Graduate

50 to 59 Years

60 Years or Older

47.3%

44.1%

37.9%

24.9%

16.1%

27.0%

Some College

21.2%

21.5%

16.5%

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

11.6%

College Graduate

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis.

40%

10%

Fig. 17 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Education and Age at Release

Younger than 30 Years

50%

56.2%

40 to 49 Years

50 to 59 Years

60 Years or Older

47.6%

46.4%

29.2%

20%

The overall rearrest rate decreased with every step of educational

achievement (Figure 17). Every education group experienced a decline in

rearrest rates as age increases. Offenders who did not complete high school

generally had the highest rearrest rates in all age categories compared to

other educational cohorts, starting with a 74.4 percent rearrest rate in the

youngest age cohort. College graduates had the lowest rearrest rates among the

educational groups.

90%

60%

69.5%

30 to 39 Years

30%

Other

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis.

100%

70%

Younger than 30 Years

17.1%

Male

40.7%

29.1%

15.3%

12.0%

Female

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis.

Federal Offense Type and Criminal History

Offenders whose primary offense involved robbery or firearms had higher

rearrest rates in all age categories (Figure 19). The Commission found that

firearm offenders had a rearrest rate of 79.3 percent in the younger than

30 cohort, the highest rearrest rate among all sentencing types. Robbery

offenders, unlike all other offense types, did not experience a continuous

decline in rearrest rates as they aged. Instead, rearrest rates increased from the

younger than 30 age cohort (66.2%) to the 40 to 49 age cohort (71.5%) before

experiencing a sharp decline.

Rearrest rates decline with age across every base offense level group

analyzed (Figure 20). Comparing similar age groups across base offense levels,

the Commission found that the lowest base offense level group had a modestly

higher recidivism rate across most age categories than those with higher base

offense levels. For example, in the younger than 30 age cohort, those with base

offense levels of 25 or lower had a 66.3 percent rearrest rate, somewhat higher

than those offenders with base offense levels of 32 or higher (60.2%).

Fig. 19 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Primary Offense Type at

Sentencing and Age at Release

100%

Younger than 30 Years

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

79.3%

62.8%

52.0%

30.2%

26.8%

17.5%

20%

50 to 59 Years

10%

Drug Trafficking

80%

19.7%

Fraud

60%

23.3%

14.5%

All Other

30 to 39 Years

40 to 49 Years

27.9%

20%

60 Years or Older

64.2%

30%

10%

50 to 59 Years

48.9%

40%

37.7%

Robbery

57.7%

50%

50.6%

12.5%

Firearms

70.2%

70%

34.5%

31.8%

Younger than 30 Years

90%

63.0%

54.6%

41.8%

100%

60 Years or Older

71.0% 71.5%

66.2%

53.6%

44.8%

42.3%

30%

40 to 49 Years

70.4%

62.5%

40%

30 to 39 Years

Fig. 21 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Weapon Enhancement and Age

at Release

53.0%

42.6%

17.2%

Weapon Enhancement

26.7%

16.4%

No Weapon Enhancement

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis.

Offenders with a weapon enhancement had a higher rearrest rate than

offenders who did not across all age groups (Figure 21). For example, federal

offenders who were younger than 30 and had a weapon enhancement had a

rearrest rate of 70.2 percent compared to 64.2 percent for those younger than

30 without a weapon enhancement.

Rearrest rates increased with the Criminal History Category (CHC) of

offenders across all age groups (Figure 22). For instance, offenders who were

younger than 30 and in CHC I had a 53 percent rearrest rate, compared to 79.5

percent for that same age group in CHC III, and 89.7 percent for that same age

group in CHC VI.

Fig. 20 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Base Offense Level and Age at Release

Fig. 22 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Criminal History Category and Age

at Release

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

Younger than 30 Years

66.3%

40 to 49 Years

62.3%

55.7%

44.3%

27.6%

10%

30 to 39 Years

BOL 6 to 25

16.5%

52.9%

50 to 59 Years

60 Years or Older

60.2%

43.8%

25.7%

BOL 26 to 31

19.3%

90%

80%

70%

48.4%

Younger than 30 Years

60%

50%

37.1%

40%

23.4%

BOL 32 to 43

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis.

30%

13.6%

20%

10%

30 to 39 Years

79.5%

70.1%

35.3%

25.9%

16.1%

11.3%

Category I

54.0%

47.2%

30.1%

22.6%

Category II

50 to 59 Years

86.3%

73.5% 72.4%

63.7%

55.8%

53.0%

40 to 49 Years

38.4%

51.6%

46.3%

60 Years or Older

90.6%

79.9%

71.3%

89.7%

84.6%

80.2%

64.9%

58.7%

44.4%

37.7%

25.5%

Category III

Category IV

Category V

Category VI

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Part Five:

RECIDIVISM RATES AMONG FEDERAL OFFENDERS BY AGE

Federal Sentence Imposed

Offenders who received a prison only sentence had a higher rearrest rate

than offenders who received a different form of sentence (Figure 23). For

instance, offenders who received sentences of prison only and who were

younger than 30 years of age had a rearrest rate of 68.6 percent compared to

53.6 percent for offenders in the same age group who received split sentences

and 55.4 percent for offenders in the same age group who were sentenced to

probation and confinement. Offenders younger than 30 who were sentenced to

probation or fine only had a rearrest rate of 51.5 percent.

Rearrest rates declined with the age at release across all sentence lengths

(Figure 24). For example, among offenders with imprisonment sentences up to

six months, those younger than age 30 at release had the highest rearrest rate

(52.7%) while offenders 60 years and older at release had the lowest rearrest

rate (20.0%). In general, there was some association between the length of

the original federal sentence and rearrest rates. Offenders with the shortest

imprisonment sentences, of up to six months, had the lowest rearrest rates for

four of the five age groups studied. Offenders with sentences of 120 months

or longer had the highest rearrest rates for two of the age groups studied and

among the highest rearrest rates for the remaining three age groups. Among

all offenders sentenced to one year of imprisonment or longer, the association

between sentence length and rearrest rates was less clear. For example, for

offenders younger than 30 at release, the rearrest rate was approximately 70

percent regardless of the length of sentence imposed, ranging from 69.2 percent

for offenders sentenced from 12 to 23 months of imprisonment to 68.1 percent

for offenders sentenced to 120 months or longer, with the highest rearrest rate

of 71.4 percent for offenders sentenced to 60 to 119 months.

Fig. 23 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Type of Federal Sentence

Imposed and Age at Release

100%

90%

Younger than 30 Years

30 to 39 Years

40 to 49 Years

50 to 59 Years

60 Years or Older

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

10%

56.9%

47.9%

41.8%

30.2%

26.6%

18.9%

15.0%

20%

44.7%

35.5%

27.7%

30%

53.6%

55.4%

51.5%

68.6%

11.7%

9.2%

Probation or Fine Only

Probation and Confinement

29.6%

22.9%

19.0%

Prison/Community Split Sentence

Prison Only

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis.

Fig. 24 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders by Length of Federal Sentence and

Age at Release

100%

90%

Younger than 30 Years

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

30 to 39 Years

69.2%

61.4%

52.7%

42.5%

28.9%

20.4%

20.0%

Up to 6 Months

40 to 49 Years

54.8%

33.3%

15.0%

6 to 11 Months

12.3%

12 to 23 Months

58.5%

52.8%

50.3%

47.6%

24.3%

68.1%

58.7%

56.9%

41.5%

60 Years or Older

71.4%

68.4%

52.8%

45.8%

50 to 59 Years

29.8%

31.8%

24 to 59 Months

60 to 119 Months

19.0%

32.4%

20.9%

17.4%

120 Months or More

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing

information necessary to perform the analysis.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

18.0%

To compare the federal offenders in this study to offenders released from

state custody, the Commission compared the recidivism rates for prisoners in

the Commission’s recidivism cohort to a cohort of state prisoners released into

the community in 2005 using a five-year follow-up period (Figure 25).28 As

reflected in Figure 25, state prisoners had a higher rearrest rate than federal

prisoners in every age category. Also, the gap in the rearrest rate between state

and federal prisoners increased with each age group. Federal prisoners in the

youngest age group had a 63.2 percent rearrest rate compared to 84.1 percent

for state prisoners. In the oldest age group, the rearrest rate declined to 32.5

percent for federal offenders compared to 69.2 percent for state prisoners.

Fig. 25 Rearrest Rate of Recidivism Study Offenders for Federal and State Prisoners by Age

at Release: Five Year Post Release

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

63.2%

84.1%

50%

80.3%

57.6%

40%

77.0%

78.1%

50.3%

44.5%

30 to 34 Years

35 to 39 Years

30%

20%

10%

24 Years or Younger

25 to 29 Years

Federal Prisoners

State Prisoners

69.2%

32.5%

40 Years Or Older

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30

States (2005). The Commission excluded cases from this analysis that were missing information necessary to perform the analysis.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Part Six

Conclusion

Part Six:

CONCLUSION

Conclusion

This is the fourth report in the Commission’s ongoing recidivism study. This

report examined the impact of the aging process on federal offender recidivism

and the impact of other offense and offender factors once age is accounted

for. The Commission found that older offenders are substantially less likely to

recidivate following release compared to younger cohorts. Among offenders

released younger than age 21, 67.6 percent were rearrested compared to 13.4

percent of those released age 65 or older. The pattern is consistent across age

groups, as age increases recidivism by any measure declined. Older offenders

who do recidivate do so later in the follow-up period, do so less frequently, and

had less serious recidivism offenses on average.

The Commission found that age is not the only factor associated with

recidivism. After accounting for age, criminal history as measured by the

offenders’ Criminal History Category was closely correlated with recidivism

rates. Demographic factors including gender (males had higher rates), race

and ethnicity (minorities had higher rates), and education levels (those with

lower education levels had higher rates) also stood out. Other factors found to

be associated with recidivism rates after accounting for age include sentence

length for offenders less than age 50: the shortest lengths are associated with

less recidivism up to sentences of one year, beyond which recidivism rates level

off. Some offense characteristics, in particular primary federal offense (firearms

and robbery, for example) and weapon enhancement, are associated with higher

recidivism rates.

The Commission will issue additional reports in this recidivism study series

in the coming months.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Part Seven

Endnotes

The United States Sentencing Commission is an independent agency in the judicial

branch of government. Established by the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, its principal purposes

are (1) to establish sentencing policies and practices for the federal courts, including guidelines

regarding the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal

crimes; (2) to advise and assist Congress, the federal judiciary, and the executive branch in the

development of effective and efficient crime policy; and (3) to collect, analyze, research, and

distribute a broad array of information on federal crime and sentencing issues. See 28 U.S.C. §§

995(a)(14), (15), (20).

See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Recidivism Among Federal Offenders: A

Comprehensive Overview (2016) [hereinafter Recidivism Overview Report], https://www.

ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/research-publications/2016/

recidivism_overview.pdf; U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Recidivism Among Federal Drug Trafficking

Offenders (2017), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/

research-publications/2017/20170221_Recidivism-Drugs.pdf; and U.S. Sentencing Comm’n,

The Past Predicts the Future: Criminal History and Recidivism of Federal Offenders

(2017), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/research-and-publications/researchpublications/2017/20170309_Recidivism-CH.pdf.

28 U.S.C. § 991(b)(2).

See U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Supplementary Report On The Initial Sentencing

Guidelines And Policy Statements 41–44 (1987), https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/

guidelines-manual/1987/manual-pdf/1987_Supplementary_Report_Initial_Sentencing_Guidelines.

pdf [hereinafter “Supplementary Report”].

See, e.g., U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Recidivism Among Offenders Receiving

Retroactive Sentencing Reductions: The 2007 Crack Cocaine Amendment (2014), https://

www.ussc.gov/research/research-publications/recidivism-among-offenders-receiving-retroactivesentencereductions-2007-crack-cocaine-amendment [hereinafter “Crack Cocaine Recidivism

Report”] and U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, 2016 Report to the Congress: Career Offender

Enhancements (2016), https://www.ussc.gov/research/congressional-reports/2016-reportcongress-career-offender-enhancements.

Public order offenses include violations of conditions of federal probation, federal

supervised release, or state parole and crimes such as obstruction of justice and failure to appear.

See Nat’l Institute of Justice, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Recidivism, https://web.archive.

org/web/20160120175242/http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.

aspx (Jan. 20, 2016).

See Recidivism Overview Report, supra note 2, at 7-8.

Revocations were not counted as reconvictions because the offenders were not convicted

of a new offense (even if the basis for revocation was a “new law violation”). Offenders whose terms

of supervision were revoked and who were sentenced to imprisonment were treated as having been

reincarcerated.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

See U.S. Gov’t Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions

Could Enhance The Completeness Of Records Used For Employment-Related Background

Checks (2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162.

Id.

See Recidivism Overview Report, supra note 2, at 23 (Figure 11).

Farrington, supra, at 191.

See Recidivism Overview Report, supra note 2, at n.56. The relationship between age

and propensity to commit crime was first documented in 1842. See Adolphe Quietelet, A Treatise

On Man And The Development of His Faculties (1842). See also, https://www.nij.gov/topics/

crime/Pages/delinquency-to-adult-offending.aspx. For more recent discussion of the development

of offending behavior, age-related risk factors, and the effects of life events on offending see D. P.

Farrington, Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues. The 2002

Sutherland Award Address, 41 Criminology 221–55 (2003).

https://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/Pages/delinquency-to-adult-offending.aspx.

However, different types of offenses peak at different ages, and individual propensities differ from

aggregate totals. See David P. Farrington, “Age and Crime,” in 7 Crime and Justice: An Annual

Review of Research 189 (Michael Tonry & Norval Morris, eds., 1986).

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Report, (2017), https://ucr.fbi.

gov/?came_from=https%3A//ucr.fbi.gov/word.

See Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crimes in the United States, https://ucr.fbi.gov/

crime-in-the-u.s.

Prior record data on federal offenders includes arrests reported prior to their 2005

release as well as any arrests that may be reported post-2005, in other words the entire criminal

record for federal offenders available at the time of Interstate Identification Index (III) data

collection. In contrast, all the 2016 U.S. arrests are a snapshot of a single year for all offenses in the

United States cleared through an arrest. The comparison is therefore covering widely different time

intervals, and is presented merely to suggest that the same general relationship of age and arrests

holds true for federal offenders as for all offenders arrested in 2016. While 2016 U.S. arrest data

is available for juvenile arrests, state reporting in III on juveniles is often unavailable, requiring

this comparison to adults only. To put the comparison on the same scale, five-year intervals were

chosen, beginning with the interval from age 20 through 24.

For example, if an offender is reported arrested for two charges at age 20 and one charge

at age 25, that offender adds two incidents to the age 20-24 group and one to the age 25-29 group.

See Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crimes in the United States 2016, at Table 20,

Arrests by Age 2016, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topicpages/tables/table-20.

There are many theories attempting to explain this aggregate pattern of rising crime

through teenage years followed by steady decline at some point after age 20. The age-crime curve

captures both the prevalence of offending (the number of people committing a criminal act) and

the incidence (number of criminal acts those people commit). There is no single well-established

cause of offending, and contributing factors may be both biological (e.g., brain functioning changes

in transition from child to adult – see G. Sweeten, Alex Piquero, and L. Steinberg, Age and the

Explanation of Crime, Revisited, 42 J. Youth and Adolescence 921–38 (2013)) and sociological

(e.g., informal and formal bonds with others and with the community which may aggravate or deter

offending). Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson argued that the shape of the age-crime curve

was similar across time and place, and largely unaffected by life events after childhood. Travis

Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson, Age and the Explanation of Crime, 89 Am. J. Sociology 552-84

(1983). They argue that individual differences are primarily explained by level of self-control and

assert that the decline in adulthood is due primarily to reduced incidents of crime. On the other

hand, Blumstein, Cohen, and Farrington assert that the decline in the aggregate age-crime curve

is explained at least in part by the termination of criminal careers for most offenders by early

adulthood. Alfred Blumstein, Jacqueline Cohen, and David P. Farrington, Criminal Career Research:

Its Value for Criminology, 26 Criminology 1 (1988). That is, the rapid decline in the age-crime curve

reflects desistance from crime. Sampson and Laub document termination in criminal careers for

a sample of offenders and the mechanisms which foster the turn away from crime. See Robert

Sampson and John H. Laub, Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life

(1993) (expanding on adult choice making, arguing that different choices taken over the adult life

course, especially good marriages and other positive turning points over the life course help explain

desistance from crime.) Therefore, the decline in the aggregate age-crime curve may be attributable

to former offenders who have made the necessary life course changes. See Ray Paternoster and

Shawn Bushway, Desistance and the Feared Self: Toward an Identity Theory of Criminal Desistance,

99 J. Crim. L. & Criminology (2006) (that desistance from crime is a choice, that offenders who

previously identified with a criminal lifestyle and criminal associates may begin to find the costs

of this commitment exceeded by the benefits, providing a motivation to change their lives and

associates and desist from crime).

One exception occurs with reincarceration. Those under age 21, a small group, have a

slightly lower rate of reincarceration (35.7%) compared to those between ages 21 and 24 (38.6%).

The shortest time to arrest leading to reincarceration (29 months) is attributed to the

younger than 30 cohort and increases to 51 months in the last age group. The most serious type

of offense most likely to cause reincarceration also shifts with age from assault (for all age groups

under the age of 50) to public order offenses (for age 50 to 59) or drug trafficking (for age 60 or

older).

Matthew Durose, Alexia Cooper, and Howard Snyder, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

U.S. Dep’t of justice, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 30 States in 2005: Patterns from

2005 to 2010 (2014), http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf.

For more information on how an offender’s criminal history is addressed under

the sentencing guidelines, see U.S. Sentencing Comm’n, Guidelines Manual, Ch. 4 (Nov. 2016)

[hereinafter USSG].

For more information on the relationship between CHC and recidivism see U.S.

Sentencing Comm’n, The Past Predicts the Future: Criminal History and Recidivism of

Federal Offenders, supra note 2.

These four different sentence types correspond to the four “Zones” (A-D) in the

Sentencing Table in the Guidelines Manual. See USSG, supra note 22, at Ch. 5, Pt. A (Sentencing

Table); see also USSG §§5B1.1 & 5C1.1 (setting forth the sentencing options for Zones A-D). Zone

A authorizes probation only; Zone B authorizes probation with a condition of confinement; Zone C

authorizes a “split” sentence of imprisonment and community confinement (e.g., home detention

or a halfway house); and Zone D authorizes sentences of imprisonment only. See USSG §§5B1.1 &

5C1.1.

The shortest time to arrest leading to a reconviction (29 months) is attributed to the

younger than 30 cohort and increases to 39 months in the last age group. The most serious type of

offense most likely to cause reconviction also shifts with age from assault (for all age groups under

the age of 50) to public order offenses (for age 50 to 59) or drug trafficking (for age 60 or older).

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Part Eight

Appendix

Part Eight:

APPENDIX

Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Race and Age at Release

Total

Under 30 Years of Age

Race

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

30-39 Years of Age

Race

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

40-49 Years of Age

Race

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

50-59 Years of Age

Race

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

60 Years of Age or Older

Race

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

Rearrest

49.3%

Reconviction

31.7%

Reincarceration

24.7%

2,265

2,410

1,714

401

59.1%

72.7%

61.2%

65.1%

40.8%

51.4%

40.2%

49.1%

31.1%

40.7%

31.9%

44.1%

3,090

3,604

1,485

337

48.9%

59.9%

48.7%

50.5%

31.9%

36.4%

31.3%

35.0%

24.2%

28.0%

24.7%

27.9%

3,076

1,688

843

281

39.4%

52.2%

39.2%

42.0%

25.7%

30.9%

22.5%

27.1%

19.1%

24.2%

17.4%

23.8%

1,797

719

340

109

23.7%

36.0%

24.4%

22.9%

12.7%

18.8%

14.4%

11.9%

9.9%

14.7%

11.5%

9.2%

846

186

126

15.7%

19.4%

19.1%

10.9%

7.8%

15.6%

10.3%

6.5%

5.2%

12.9%

7.9%

6.5%

25,386

While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest.

Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence

of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of

Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of

offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group

because of missing information.

A-38

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Education and Age at Release

Total

Under 30 Years of Age

Education

Less Than High School

High School Graduate

Some College

College Graduate

30-39 Years of Age

Education

Less Than High School

High School Graduate

Some College

College Graduate

40-49 Years of Age

Education

Less Than High School

High School Graduate

Some College

College Graduate

50-59 Years of Age

Education

Less Than High School

High School Graduate

Some College

College Graduate

60 Years of Age or Older

Education

Less Than High School

High School Graduate

Some College

College Graduate

Rearrest

49.3%

Reconviction

31.7%

Reincarceration

24.7%

3,067

2,412

1,170

111

74.4%

62.9%

47.3%

27.0%

53.2%

43.0%

29.7%

16.2%

43.6%

33.1%

21.1%

11.7%

2,849

3,269

1,923

433

63.0%

55.0%

44.1%

21.5%

40.9%

35.0%

26.1%

11.8%

32.8%

27.0%

18.5%

7.4%

1,679

2,319

1,313

543

51.5%

45.0%

37.9%

21.2%

30.9%

28.6%

24.1%

12.5%

24.0%

22.2%

18.1%

8.7%

698

953

744

551

31.0%

30.6%

24.9%

16.5%

18.2%

16.2%

12.2%

8.2%

14.6%

12.5%

9.8%

5.8%

348

356

249

241

17.2%

18.8%

16.1%

11.6%

9.5%

11.2%

8.4%

5.8%

7.2%

7.9%

6.0%

4.2%

25,386

While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest.

Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence

of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of

Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of

offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group

because of missing information.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

A-39

Part Eight:

APPENDIX

Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Gender and Age at Release

Total

Under 30 Years of Age

Gender

Male

Female

30-39 Years of Age

Gender

Male

Female

40-49 Years of Age

Gender

Male

Female

50-59 Years of Age

Gender

Male

Female

60 Years of Age or Older

Gender

Male

Female

Rearrest

49.3%

Reconviction

31.7%

Reincarceration

24.7%

5,342

1,451

69.5%

47.6%

48.6%

31.2%

39.2%

21.7%

7,092

1,427

56.2%

40.7%

35.9%

23.7%

28.1%

15.8%

4,783

1,110

46.4%

29.1%

16.8%

22.8%

10.7%

2,453

516

29.2%

15.3%

15.5%

8.7%

12.2%

6.4%

1,053

150

17.1%

12.0%

9.4%

8.0%

6.8%

6.0%

25,386

While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest.

Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence

of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of

Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of

offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group

because of missing information.

A-40

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Primary Offense Type and

Age at Release

Total

Under 30 Years of Age

Primary Offense Type

Drug Trafficking

Firearms

Fraud

Robbery

All Other

30-39 Years of Age

Primary Offense Type

Drug Trafficking

Firearms

Fraud

Robbery

All Other

40-49 Years of Age

Primary Offense Type

Drug Trafficking

Firearms

Fraud

Robbery

All Other

50-59 Years of Age

Primary Offense Type

Drug Trafficking

Firearms

Fraud

Robbery

All Other

60 Years of Age or Older

Primary Offense Type

Drug Trafficking

Firearms

Fraud

Robbery

All Other

Rearrest

49.3%

Reconviction

31.7%

Reincarceration

24.7%

3,110

1,077

511

287

1,811

62.5%

79.3%

53.6%

66.2%

63.0%

41.2%

60.2%

36.4%

43.2%

44.8%

31.7%

49.4%

25.1%

37.6%

36.2%

4,078

1,074

1,037

376

1,958

52.0%

70.4%

41.8%

71.0%

50.6%

31.5%

47.8%

26.1%

47.9%

32.5%

23.7%

39.8%

18.4%

42.8%

24.4%

2,151

721

977

298

1,745

42.3%

62.8%

31.8%

71.5%

37.7%

24.5%

40.4%

19.2%

51.7%

24.0%

18.4%

31.8%

13.4%

46.6%

18.2%

952

270

618

108

1,021

26.8%

44.8%

19.7%

54.6%

23.3%

14.1%

24.4%

10.4%

35.2%

12.1%

11.5%

19.3%

7.8%

27.8%

9.2%

286

297

496

17.5%

30.2%

12.5%

34.5%

14.5%

10.1%

20.8%

6.7%

13.8%

7.7%

6.6%

15.6%

4.7%

13.8%

5.9%

25,386

While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest.

Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence

of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of

Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of

offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group

because of missing information.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

A-41

Part Eight:

APPENDIX

Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Base Offense Level and

Age at Release

Total

Under 30 Years of Age

Base Offense Level

6 to 25

26 to 31

32 to 43

30-39 Years of Age

Base Offense Level

6 to 25

26 to 31

32 to 43

40-49 Years of Age

Base Offense Level

6 to 25

26 to 31

32 to 43

50-59 Years of Age

Base Offense Level

6 to 25

26 to 31

32 to 43

60 Years of Age or Older

Base Offense Level

6 to 25

26 to 31

32 to 43

Rearrest

49.3%

Reconviction

31.7%

Reincarceration

24.7%

4,682

1,393

716

66.3%

62.3%

60.2%

46.9%

41.4%

38.7%

37.4%

31.2%

5,046

1,673

1,801

55.7%

52.9%

48.4%

36.6%

32.1%

27.8%

28.8%

23.6%

20.8%

4,073

901

913

44.3%

43.8%

37.1%

28.0%

26.1%

21.9%

21.8%

19.8%

15.8%

2,192

377

397

27.6%

25.7%

23.4%

15.1%

11.7%

12.9%

11.6%

10.1%

10.3%

944

119

140

16.5%

19.3%

13.6%

9.2%

10.9%

7.9%

6.9%

7.6%

5.0%

25,386

While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest.

Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence

of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of

Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of

offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group

because of missing information.

A-42

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Weapon Enhancement and Age at Release

Total

Under 30 Years of Age

Weapon Enhancement

No Weapon Enhancement

Weapon Enhancement

30-39 Years of Age

Weapon Enhancement

No Weapon Enhancement

Weapon Enhancement

40-49 Years of Age

Weapon Enhancement

No Weapon Enhancement

Weapon Enhancement

50-59 Years of Age

Weapon Enhancement

No Weapon Enhancement

Weapon Enhancement

60 Years of Age or Older

Weapon Enhancement

No Weapon Enhancement

Weapon Enhancement

Rearrest

49.3%

Reconviction

31.7%

Reincarceration

24.7%

6,136

660

64.2%

70.2%

44.4%

48.9%

34.9%

40.6%

7,509

1,014

53.0%

57.7%

33.7%

35.2%

25.8%

27.8%

5,356

538

42.6%

48.9%

26.4%

30.5%

20.2%

24.7%

2,747

222

26.7%

27.9%

14.2%

15.8%

11.1%

12.2%

1,140

16.4%

17.2%

9.2%

9.4%

6.6%

9.4%

25,386

While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest.

Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence

of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of

Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of

offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group

because of missing information.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

A-43

Part Eight:

APPENDIX

Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Criminal History Category

and Age at Release

Total

Under 30 Years of Age

Criminal History Category

CHC I

CHC II

CHC III

CHC IV

CHC V

CHC VI

30-39 Years of Age

Criminal History Category

CHC I

CHC II

CHC III

CHC IV

CHC V

CHC VI

40-49 Years of Age

Criminal History Category

CHC I

CHC II

CHC III

CHC IV

CHC V

CHC VI

50-59 Years of Age

Criminal History Category

CHC I

CHC II

CHC III

CHC IV

CHC V

CHC VI

60 Years of Age or Older

Criminal History Category

CHC I

CHC II

CHC III

CHC IV

CHC V

CHC VI

Rearrest

49.3%

Reconviction

31.7%

Reincarceration

24.7%

3,771

895

1,095

568

244

214

53.0%

70.1%

79.5%

86.3%

90.6%

89.7%

34.1%

47.2%

56.7%

66.9%

73.8%

72.9%

25.4%

35.5%

46.5%

57.4%

66.0%

61.7%

3,890

1,091

1,371

835

483

803

35.3%

55.8%

63.7%

73.5%

79.9%

84.6%

19.6%

32.9%

40.2%

47.1%

59.2%

63.5%

12.9%

23.1%

31.5%

39.8%

51.6%

54.8%

3,135

674

746

398

282

626

25.9%

47.2%

54.0%

72.4%

71.3%

80.2%

14.0%

26.9%

33.0%

49.0%

46.5%

59.1%

9.4%

18.7%

24.5%

40.0%

39.4%

51.9%

1,877

316

292

153

225

16.1%

30.1%

38.4%

51.6%

58.7%

64.9%

8.1%

13.6%

19.9%

32.7%

32.6%

40.0%

5.5%

9.5%

17.8%

28.1%

29.4%

33.8%

876

106

11.3%

22.6%

25.5%

46.3%

44.4%

37.7%

5.9%

12.3%

16.0%

29.3%

27.8%

22.6%

4.1%

9.4%

11.3%

19.5%

22.2%

20.8%

25,386

While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest.

Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence

of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of

Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of

offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group

because of missing information.

A-44

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Sentence Type and Age at Release

Total

Under 30 Years of Age

Sentence Type

Probation or Fine Only

Probation and Confinement

Prison/Confinement Split

Prison Only

30-39 Years of Age

Sentence Type

Probation or Fine Only

Probation and Confinement

Prison/Confinement Split

Prison Only

40-49 Years of Age

Sentence Type

Probation or Fine Only

Probation and Confinement

Prison/Confinement Split

Prison Only

50-59 Years of Age

Sentence Type

Probation or Fine Only

Probation and Confinement

Prison/Confinement Split

Prison Only

60 Years of Age or Older

Sentence Type

Probation or Fine Only

Probation and Confinement

Prison/Confinement Split

Prison Only

Rearrest

49.3%

Reconviction

31.7%

Reincarceration

24.7%

1,039

341

261

5,144

51.5%

55.4%

53.6%

68.6%

34.2%

34.6%

34.1%

48.3%

21.6%

23.8%

25.3%

39.5%

989

302

244

6,971

35.5%

44.7%

41.8%

56.9%

20.7%

27.8%

25.4%

36.3%

11.8%

14.9%

16.0%

28.9%

835

282

268

4,501

27.7%

26.6%

30.2%

47.9%

16.9%

14.9%

17.2%

29.9%

9.1%

11.0%

11.2%

23.8%

504

179

140

2,145

18.9%

19.0%

22.9%

29.6%

8.9%

10.6%

13.6%

15.9%

5.2%

7.3%

7.1%

13.2%

246

811

15.0%

9.2%

11.7%

18.0%

10.2%

4.6%

5.0%

9.7%

6.5%

3.5%

3.3%

7.4%

25,386

While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest.

Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence

of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of

Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of

offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group

because of missing information.

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

A-45

Part Eight:

APPENDIX

Recidivism Rates of Recidivism Study Offenders by Length of Federal Sentence

and Age at Release

Total

Under 30 Years of Age

Length of Federal Sentence

Up to 6 Months

6 to 11 Months

12 to 23 Months

24 to 59 Months

60 to 119 Months

120 Months or More

30-39 Years of Age

Length of Federal Sentence

Up to 6 Months

6 to 11 Months

12 to 23 Months

24 to 59 Months

60 to 119 Months

120 Months or More

40-49 Years of Age

Length of Federal Sentence

Up to 6 Months

6 to 11 Months

12 to 23 Months

24 to 59 Months

60 to 119 Months

120 Months or More

50-59 Years of Age

Length of Federal Sentence

Up to 6 Months

6 to 11 Months

12 to 23 Months

24 to 59 Months

60 to 119 Months

120 Months or More

60 Years of Age or Older

Length of Federal Sentence

Up to 6 Months

6 to 11 Months

12 to 23 Months

24 to 59 Months

60 to 119 Months

120 Months or More

Rearrest

49.3%

Reconviction

31.7%

Reincarceration

24.7%

294

264

1,204

2,457

995

185

52.7%

61.4%

69.2%

68.4%

71.4%

68.1%

34.7%

43.9%

48.6%

48.8%

47.8%

48.1%

26.2%

31.8%

40.3%

38.9%

39.5%

278

197

1,077

2,647

1,903

1,110

42.5%

54.8%

52.8%

56.9%

58.7%

58.5%

25.5%

32.0%

34.6%

36.8%

37.2%

36.0%

16.2%

26.9%

27.1%

29.5%

29.4%

273

190

793

1,734

1,049

727

28.9%

45.8%

41.5%

47.6%

50.3%

52.8%

17.6%

23.7%

25.5%

29.1%

32.6%

34.4%

11.4%

16.8%

21.8%

22.4%

25.6%

28.6%

147

399

852

446

370

20.4%

33.3%

24.3%

29.8%

31.8%

32.4%

12.2%

17.4%

16.0%

15.1%

16.1%

17.8%

7.5%

11.6%

13.0%

12.6%

13.0%

15.7%

171

321

155

129

20.0%

15.0%

12.3%

19.0%

17.4%

20.9%

12.7%

15.0%

6.4%

9.4%

9.0%

10.9%

9.1%

7.5%

5.3%

7.5%

6.5%

8.5%

25,386

While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest.

Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence

of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of

Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT. The numbers in the table represent the total number of

offenders in each grouping, not the total number of offenders that recidivated. The total number of offenders in each grouping may not add to the total study group

because of missing information.

A-46

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

Recidivism Rates for Federal and State Prisoners by Age at Release: Five Year Post-Release

24 Years or Younger

Federal or State Prisoners

Federal Prisoners

State Prisoners

25 to 29 Years

Federal or State Prisoners

Federal Prisoners

State Prisoners

30 to 34 Years

Federal or State Prisoners

Federal Prisoners

State Prisoners

35 to 39 Years

Federal or State Prisoners

Federal Prisoners

State Prisoners

40 Years or Older

Federal or State Prisoners

Federal Prisoners

State Prisoners

Rearrest

Reconviction

Reincarceration

1,916

N/A

63.2%

84.1%

42.9%

N/A

35.1%

N/A

3,489

N/A

57.6%

80.3%

34.9%

N/A

28.2%

N/A

3,966

N/A

50.3%

77.0%

28.5%

N/A

22.2%

N/A

3,249

N/A

44.5%

78.1%

24.4%

N/A

19.7%

N/A

7,925

N/A

32.5%

69.2%

17.3%

N/A

13.6%

N/A

While states have improved the completeness of criminal history records, a recent federal study found significant gaps in reporting of dispositions following an arrest.

Such gaps occur in the criminal records used in this report, and lead to an undercounting of reconvictions, since missing dispositions are treated herein as the absence

of reconviction and reincarceration. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Criminal History Records: Additional Actions Could Enhance the Completeness of

Records Used for Employment-Related Background Checks (February 2015), http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-162.

SOURCE: U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2005 Recidivism Release Cohort Datafile, RECID05_OFFUPDT and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Recidivism of Prisoners

Released in 30 States (2005).

The Effects of Aging on Recidivism Among Federal Offenders

A-47

APPENDIX B

D.C. Code, Section 24-403.03:

DC ST § 24-403.03

§ 24-403.03. Modification of an imposed term of imprisonment for violations of

law committed before 25 years of age.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall reduce a term of

imprisonment imposed upon a defendant for an offense committed before the

defendant's 25th birthday if:

(1) The defendant was sentenced pursuant to § 24-403 or § 24-403.01, or was

committed pursuant to § 24-903, and has served at least 15 years in prison; and

(2) The court finds, after considering the factors set forth in subsection (c) of

this section, that the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any person or the

community and that the interests of justice warrant a sentence modification.

(b) (1) A defendant convicted as an adult of an offense committed before the

defendant’s 25th birthday may file an application for a sentence modification under

this section. The application shall be in the form of a motion to reduce the sentence.

The application may include affidavits or other written material. The application

shall be filed with the sentencing court and a copy shall be served on the United

States Attorney.

(2) The court may direct the parties to expand the record by submitting

additional testimony, examinations, or written materials related to the motion. The

court shall hold a hearing on the motion at which the defendant and the defendant's

counsel shall be given an opportunity to speak on the defendant's behalf. The court

may permit the parties to introduce evidence. The court may consider any records

related to the underlying offense.

(3) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, the defendant

shall be present at any hearing conducted under this section unless the defendant

waives the right to be present. Any proceeding under this section may occur by

video teleconferencing, and the requirement of a defendant's presence is satisfied

by participation in the video teleconference.

(B) During a period of time for which the Mayor has declared a public

health emergency pursuant to § 7-2304.01, a defendant in the custody of the

Bureau of Prisons who committed the offense for which the defendant has filed

the application for sentence modification after the defendant's 18th birthday but

before the defendant's 25th birthday may not petition the court to return to the

Department of Corrections for a proceeding under this section.

(4) The court shall issue an opinion in writing stating the reasons for granting

or denying the application under this section, but the court may proceed to

sentencing immediately after granting the application.

to subsection (a) of this section, shall consider:

(1) The defendant's age at the time of the offense;

(2) The history and characteristics of the defendant;

(3) Whether the defendant has substantially complied with the rules of the

institution to which the defendant has been confined, and whether the defendant

has completed any educational, vocational, or other program, where available;

(4) Any report or recommendation received from the United States Attorney;

(5) Whether the defendant has demonstrated maturity, rehabilitation, and a

fitness to reenter society sufficient to justify a sentence reduction;

(6) Any statement, provided orally or in writing, provided pursuant to § 231904 or 18 U.S.C. § 3771 by a victim of the offense for which the defendant is

imprisoned, or by a family member of the victim if the victim is deceased;

(7) Any reports of physical, mental, or psychiatric examinations of the

defendant conducted by licensed health care professionals;

(8) The defendant's family and community circumstances at the time of the

offense, including any history of abuse, trauma, or involvement in the child welfare

system;

(9) The extent of the defendant's role in the offense and whether and to what

extent another person was involved in the offense;

(10) The diminished culpability of juveniles and persons under age 25, as

compared to that of older adults, and the hallmark features of youth, including

immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences, which

counsel against sentencing them to lengthy terms in prison, despite the brutality or

cold-blooded nature of any particular crime, and the defendant's personal

circumstances that support an aging out of crime; and

(11) Any other information the court deems relevant to its decision.

(d) If the court denies or grants only in part the defendant's 1st application under

this section, a court shall entertain a 2nd application under this section no sooner

than 3 years after the date that the order on the initial application becomes final. If

the court denies or grants only in part the defendant's 2nd application under this

section, a court shall entertain a 3rd and final application under this section no

sooner than 3 years following the date that the order on the 2nd application becomes

final. No court shall entertain a 4th or successive application under this section.

(e) (1) Any defendant whose sentence is reduced under this section shall be

resentenced pursuant to § 24-403, § 24-403.01, or § 24-903, as applicable.

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when resentencing a defendant

under this section, the court:

(A) May issue a sentence less than the minimum term otherwise required

by law; and

(B) Shall not impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility

of parole or release.

(f) The version of this section that was effective from May 10, 2019, to April 27,

2021, shall apply to all proceedings initiated under this section in any District of

Columbia court, including any appeals thereof, by defendants who were eligible

under this section prior to May 10, 2021, and shall apply to all proceedings under

this section in any District of Columbia court, including any appeals thereof, that

were pending prior to April 27, 2021.

(g) In considering applications filed by defendants for offenses committed after the

defendant's 18th birthday, the court shall endeavor to prioritize consideration of the

applications of defendants who have been incarcerated the longest; except, that the

inability to identify those defendants shall not delay the court acting on other

applications under this section.

(h) Notwithstanding any other law, if a District government workforce

development program requires District residency as a condition of program

eligibility, the residency requirement shall be waived for defendants resentenced

pursuant to this section.

<Text of subsec. (i) applicable upon the date of inclusion of the fiscal effect of D.C.

Law 23-274 in an approved budget and financial plan>

(i) Beginning in Fiscal Year 2022, the Office of Victim Services and Justice Grants

shall, on an annual basis, issue a grant of $200,000 to an organization that provides

advocacy, case, management, and legal services, for the purpose of developing and

offering restorative justice practices for survivors of violent crimes who seek such

practices, such as for survivors impacted by post-conviction litigation.

D.C. Code Ann. § 24-403.03 (2021).

D.C. Code, Section 24-403.04:

§ 24-403.04. Motions for compassionate release for individuals convicted of felony

offenses.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court shall modify a term of

imprisonment imposed upon a defendant if it determines the defendant is not a

danger to the safety of any other person or the community, pursuant to the factors

to be considered in 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142(g) and 3553(a) and evidence of the

defendant's rehabilitation while incarcerated, and:

(1) The defendant has a terminal illness, which means a disease or condition

with an end-of-life trajectory;

(2) The defendant is 60 years of age or older and has served at least 20 years in

prison; or

(3) Other extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a modification,

including:

(A) A debilitating medical condition involving an incurable illness, or a

debilitating injury from which the defendant will not recover;

(B) Elderly age, defined as a defendant who:

(i) Is 60 years of age or older;

(ii) Has served the lesser of 15 years or 75% of the defendant's sentence;

and

(iii) Suffers from a chronic or serious medical condition related to the

aging process or that causes an acute vulnerability to severe medical

complications or death as a result of COVID-19;

defendant's children; or

(D) Incapacitation of a spouse or a domestic partner when the defendant

would be the only available caregiver for the spouse or domestic partner.

(b) Motions brought pursuant to this section may be brought by the United States

Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, the Bureau of Prisons, the United

States Parole Commission, or the defendant.

made pursuant to this section and at the request of counsel for the defendant, the

court may waive the appearance of a defendant currently held in the custody of the

Bureau of Prisons.

(d) For the purposes of this section, the term “COVID-19” means the disease caused

by the novel 2019 coronavirus SARS-CoV-2.

D.C. Code Ann. § 24-403.04 (2021).

Delaware Code, Title 11, Section 4-204A:

11 Del. C. § 4204A

§ 4204A. Confinement of youth convicted in Superior Court

...

(d) (1) Notwithstanding any provision of this title to the contrary, any offender

sentenced to an aggregate term of incarceration in excess of 20 years for any offense

or offenses other than murder first degree that were committed prior to the

offender's eighteenth birthday shall be eligible to petition the Superior Court for

sentence modification after the offender has served 20 years of the originally

imposed Level V sentence.

(2) Notwithstanding any provision of this title to the contrary, any offender

sentenced to a term of incarceration for murder first degree when said offense was

committed prior to the offender's eighteenth birthday shall be eligible to petition

the Superior Court for sentence modification after the offender has served 30 years

of the originally imposed Level V sentence.

(3) Notwithstanding any provision of this subsection or title to the contrary, any

offender who has petitioned the Superior Court for sentence modification pursuant

to this subsection shall not be eligible to submit a second or subsequent petition

until at least 5 years have elapsed since the date on which the Court ruled upon the

offender's most recent petition. Further, the Superior Court shall have the discretion

at the time of each sentence modification hearing to prohibit a subsequent sentence

modification petition for a period of time in excess of 5 years if the Superior Court

finds there to be no reasonable likelihood that the interests of justice will require

another hearing within 5 years.

(4) Notwithstanding the provisions of § 4205 or § 4217 of this title, any court

rule or any other provision of law to the contrary, a Superior Court Judge upon

consideration of a petition filed pursuant to this subsection (d), may modify, reduce

or suspend such petitioner's sentence, including any minimum or mandatory

sentence, or a portion thereof, in the discretion of the Court. Nothing in this section,

however, shall require the Court to grant such a petitioner a sentence modification

pursuant to this section.

(5) The Superior Court shall have the authority to promulgate appropriate rules

to regulate the filing and litigation of sentence modification petitions pursuant to

this paragraph.

Del. Code Ann. tit. 11, § 4204A (2021), amended in other part by 83 Laws 2021, ch. 40, § 2, eff.

Jan. 1, 2022.

Florida Statutes Annotated, Section 921.1402:

921.1402. Review of sentences for persons convicted of specified offenses

committed while under the age of 18 years

(1) For purposes of this section, the term “juvenile offender” means a person

sentenced to imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for an

offense committed on or after July 1, 2014, and committed before he or she attained

18 years of age.

(2) (a) A juvenile offender sentenced under s. 775.082(1)(b)1 is entitled to a review

of his or her sentence after 25 years. However, a juvenile offender is not entitled to

review if he or she has previously been convicted of one of the following offenses,

or conspiracy to commit one of the following offenses, if the offense for which the

person was previously convicted was part of a separate criminal transaction or

episode than that which resulted in the sentence under s. 775.082(1)(b)1.:

1. Murder;

2. Manslaughter;

3. Sexual battery;

4. Armed burglary;

5. Armed robbery;

6. Armed carjacking;

7. Home-invasion robbery;

8. Human trafficking for commercial sexual activity with a child under 18

years of age;

9. False imprisonment under s. 787.02(3)(a); or

10. Kidnapping.

(b) A juvenile offender sentenced to a term of more than 25 years under s.

775.082(3)(a)5.a. or s. 775.082(3)(b)2.a. is entitled to a review of his or her

sentence after 25 years.

775.082(1)(b) 2., s. 775.082(3)(a)5.b., or s. 775.082(3)(b)2.b. is entitled to a review

of his or her sentence after 15 years.

(d) A juvenile offender sentenced to a term of 20 years or more under s.

775.082(3)(c) is entitled to a review of his or her sentence after 20 years. If the

juvenile offender is not resentenced at the initial review hearing, he or she is eligible

for one subsequent review hearing 10 years after the initial review hearing.

(3) The Department of Corrections shall notify a juvenile offender of his or her

eligibility to request a sentence review hearing 18 months before the juvenile

offender is entitled to a sentence review hearing under this section.

(4) A juvenile offender seeking sentence review pursuant to subsection (2) must

submit an application to the court of original jurisdiction requesting that a sentence

review hearing be held. The juvenile offender must submit a new application to the

court of original jurisdiction to request subsequent sentence review hearings

pursuant to paragraph (2)(d). The sentencing court shall retain original jurisdiction

for the duration of the sentence for this purpose.

(5) A juvenile offender who is eligible for a sentence review hearing under this

section is entitled to be represented by counsel, and the court shall appoint a public

defender to represent the juvenile offender if the juvenile offender cannot afford an

attorney.

(6) Upon receiving an application from an eligible juvenile offender, the court of

original sentencing jurisdiction shall hold a sentence review hearing to determine

whether the juvenile offender's sentence should be modified. When determining if

it is appropriate to modify the juvenile offender's sentence, the court shall consider

any factor it deems appropriate, including all of the following:

(a) Whether the juvenile offender demonstrates maturity and rehabilitation.

(b) Whether the juvenile offender remains at the same level of risk to society as

he or she did at the time of the initial sentencing.

victim or the victim's next of kin from the sentence review hearing may not be a

factor in the determination of the court under this section. The court shall permit

the victim or victim's next of kin to be heard, in person, in writing, or by electronic

means. If the victim or the victim's next of kin chooses not to participate in the

hearing, the court may consider previous statements made by the victim or the

victim's next of kin during the trial, initial sentencing phase, or subsequent

sentencing review hearings.

(d) Whether the juvenile offender was a relatively minor participant in the

criminal offense or acted under extreme duress or the domination of another person.

(e) Whether the juvenile offender has shown sincere and sustained remorse for

the criminal offense.

(f) Whether the juvenile offender's age, maturity, and psychological

development at the time of the offense affected his or her behavior.

(g) Whether the juvenile offender has successfully obtained a high school

equivalency diploma or completed another educational, technical, work,

vocational, or self-rehabilitation program, if such a program is available.

(h) Whether the juvenile offender was a victim of sexual, physical, or emotional

abuse before he or she committed the offense.

(i) The results of any mental health assessment, risk assessment, or evaluation

of the juvenile offender as to rehabilitation.

(7) If the court determines at a sentence review hearing that the juvenile offender

has been rehabilitated and is reasonably believed to be fit to reenter society, the

court shall modify the sentence and impose a term of probation of at least 5 years.

If the court determines that the juvenile offender has not demonstrated

rehabilitation or is not fit to reenter society, the court shall issue a written order

stating the reasons why the sentence is not being modified.

Fla. Stat. Ann. § 921.1402 (2015).

United States Code, Title 18, Section 3582:

§ 3582. Imposition of a sentence of imprisonment

(a) Factors to be considered in imposing a term of imprisonment.--The court, in

determining whether to impose a term of imprisonment, and, if a term of

imprisonment is to be imposed, in determining the length of the term, shall consider

the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable,

recognizing that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction

and rehabilitation. In determining whether to make a recommendation concerning

the type of prison facility appropriate for the defendant, the court shall consider any

pertinent policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 994(a)(2).

(b) Effect of finality of judgment.--Notwithstanding the fact that a sentence to

imprisonment can subsequently be-(1) modified pursuant to the provisions of subsection (c);

(2) corrected pursuant to the provisions of rule 35 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure and section 3742; or

(3) appealed and modified, if outside the guideline range, pursuant to the

provisions of section 3742;

a judgment of conviction that includes such a sentence constitutes a final judgment

for all other purposes.

a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except that-(1) in any case-(A) the court, upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or upon

motion of the defendant after the defendant has fully exhausted all

administrative rights to appeal a failure of the Bureau of Prisons to bring a

motion on the defendant's behalf or the lapse of 30 days from the receipt of such

a request by the warden of the defendant's facility, whichever is earlier, may

reduce the term of imprisonment (and may impose a term of probation or

supervised release with or without conditions that does not exceed the unserved

portion of the original term of imprisonment), after considering the factors set

forth in section 3553(a) to the extent that they are applicable, if it finds that-(i) extraordinary and compelling reasons warrant such a reduction; or

(ii) the defendant is at least 70 years of age, has served at least 30 years

in prison, pursuant to a sentence imposed under section 3559(c), for the

offense or offenses for which the defendant is currently imprisoned, and a

determination has been made by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons that

the defendant is not a danger to the safety of any other person or the

community, as provided under section 3142(g);

and that such a reduction is consistent with applicable policy statements issued

by the Sentencing Commission; and

(B) the court may modify an imposed term of imprisonment to the extent

otherwise expressly permitted by statute or by Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of

Criminal Procedure; and

(2) in the case of a defendant who has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment

based on a sentencing range that has subsequently been lowered by the Sentencing

Commission pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994(o), upon motion of the defendant or the

Director of the Bureau of Prisons, or on its own motion, the court may reduce the

term of imprisonment, after considering the factors set forth in section 3553(a) to

the extent that they are applicable, if such a reduction is consistent with applicable

policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission.

(d) Notification requirements.-(1) Terminal illness defined.--In this subsection, the term “terminal illness”

means a disease or condition with an end-of-life trajectory.

(2) Notification.--The Bureau of Prisons shall, subject to any applicable

confidentiality requirements-(A) in the case of a defendant diagnosed with a terminal illness-(i) not later than 72 hours after the diagnosis notify the defendant's

attorney, partner, and family members of the defendant's condition and

inform the defendant's attorney, partner, and family members that they may

prepare and submit on the defendant's behalf a request for a sentence

reduction pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A);

(ii) not later than 7 days after the date of the diagnosis, provide the

defendant's partner and family members (including extended family) with

an opportunity to visit the defendant in person;

(iii) upon request from the defendant or his attorney, partner, or a family

member, ensure that Bureau of Prisons employees assist the defendant in

the preparation, drafting, and submission of a request for a sentence

reduction pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A); and

(iv) not later than 14 days of receipt of a request for a sentence reduction

submitted on the defendant's behalf by the defendant or the defendant's

attorney, partner, or family member, process the request;

(B) in the case of a defendant who is physically or mentally unable to submit

a request for a sentence reduction pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A)--

(i) inform the defendant's attorney, partner, and family members that

they may prepare and submit on the defendant's behalf a request for a

sentence reduction pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A);

(ii) accept and process a request for sentence reduction that has been

prepared and submitted on the defendant's behalf by the defendant's

attorney, partner, or family member under clause (i); and

(iii) upon request from the defendant or his attorney, partner, or family

member, ensure that Bureau of Prisons employees assist the defendant in

the preparation, drafting, and submission of a request for a sentence

reduction pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A); and

including in prisoner handbooks, staff training materials, and facility law

libraries and medical and hospice facilities, and make available to prisoners

upon demand, notice of-(i) a defendant's ability to request a sentence reduction pursuant to

subsection (c)(1)(A);

(ii) the procedures and timelines for initiating and resolving requests

described in clause (i); and

(iii) the right to appeal a denial of a request described in clause (i) after

all administrative rights to appeal within the Bureau of Prisons have been

exhausted.

(3) Annual report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this

subsection, and once every year thereafter, the Director of the Bureau of Prisons

shall submit to the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on

the Judiciary of the House of Representatives a report on requests for sentence

reductions pursuant to subsection (c)(1)(A), which shall include a description of,

for the previous year-(A) the number of prisoners granted and denied sentence reductions,

categorized by the criteria relied on as the grounds for a reduction in sentence;

(B) the number of requests initiated by or on behalf of prisoners, categorized

by the criteria relied on as the grounds for a reduction in sentence;

prisoners in drafting, preparing, or submitting, categorized by the criteria relied

on as the grounds for a reduction in sentence, and the final decision made in

each request;

(D) the number of requests that attorneys, partners, or family members

submitted on a defendant's behalf, categorized by the criteria relied on as the

grounds for a reduction in sentence, and the final decision made in each request;

(E) the number of requests approved by the Director of the Bureau of

Prisons, categorized by the criteria relied on as the grounds for a reduction in

sentence;

(F) the number of requests denied by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons

and the reasons given for each denial, categorized by the criteria relied on as

the grounds for a reduction in sentence;

(G) for each request, the time elapsed between the date the request was

received by the warden and the final decision, categorized by the criteria relied

on as the grounds for a reduction in sentence;

(H) for each request, the number of prisoners who died while their request

was pending and, for each, the amount of time that had elapsed between the

date the request was received by the Bureau of Prisons, categorized by the

criteria relied on as the grounds for a reduction in sentence;

(I) the number of Bureau of Prisons notifications to attorneys, partners, and

family members of their right to visit a terminally ill defendant as required

under paragraph (2)(A)(ii) and, for each, whether a visit occurred and how

much time elapsed between the notification and the visit;

(J) the number of visits to terminally ill prisoners that were denied by the

Bureau of Prisons due to security or other concerns, and the reasons given for

each denial; and

(K) the number of motions filed by defendants with the court after all

administrative rights to appeal a denial of a sentence reduction had been

exhausted, the outcome of each motion, and the time that had elapsed between

the date the request was first received by the Bureau of Prisons and the date the

defendant filed the motion with the court.

(e) Inclusion of an order to limit criminal association of organized crime and drug

offenders.--The court, in imposing a sentence to a term of imprisonment upon a

defendant convicted of a felony set forth in chapter 95 (racketeering) or 96

(racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations) of this title or in the

Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C. 801 et

seq.), or at any time thereafter upon motion by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons

or a United States attorney, may include as a part of the sentence an order that

requires that the defendant not associate or communicate with a specified person,

other than his attorney, upon a showing of probable cause to believe that association

or communication with such person is for the purpose of enabling the defendant to

control, manage, direct, finance, or otherwise participate in an illegal enterprise.

18 U.S.C.A. § 3582 (2018).

Model Penal Code:

§ 305.6. Modification of Long-Term Prison Sentences; Principles for Legislation.

The Institute does not recommend a specific legislative scheme for carrying out the

sentence-modification authority recommended in this provision, nor is the

provision drafted in the form of model legislation. Instead, the language below sets

out principles that a legislature should seek to effectuate through enactment of such

a provision.

1. The legislature shall authorize a judicial panel or other judicial decisionmaker to

hear and rule upon applications for modification of sentence from prisoners who

have served 15 years of any sentence of imprisonment.

2. After first eligibility, a prisoner’s right to apply for sentence modification shall

recur at intervals not to exceed 10 years.

3. The department of corrections shall ensure that prisoners are notified of their

rights under this provision, and have adequate assistance for the preparation of

applications, which may be provided by nonlawyers. The judicial panel or other

judicial decisionmaker shall have discretion to appoint counsel to represent

applicant prisoners who are indigent.

4. Sentence modification under this provision should be viewed as analogous to a

resentencing in light of present circumstances. The inquiry shall be whether the

purposes of sentencing in § 1.02(2) would better be served by a modified sentence

than the prisoner’s completion of the original sentence. The judicial panel or other

judicial decisionmaker may adopt procedures for the screening and dismissal of

applications that are unmeritorious on their face under this standard.

5. The judicial panel or other judicial decisionmaker shall be empowered to modify

any aspect of the original sentence, so long as the portion of the modified sentence

to be served is no more severe than the remainder of the original sentence. The

sentence-modification authority under this provision shall not be limited by any

mandatory-minimum term of imprisonment under state law.

6. Notice of the sentence-modification proceedings should be given to victims, if

they can be located with reasonable efforts, and to the relevant prosecuting

authorities. Any victim’s impact statement from the original sentencing shall be

considered by the judicial panel or other judicial decisionmaker. Victims shall be

afforded an opportunity to submit a supplemental impact statement, limited to

changed circumstances since the original sentencing.

7. An adequate record of proceedings under this provision shall be maintained, and

the judicial panel or other judicial decisionmaker shall be required to provide a

statement of reasons for its decisions on the record.

8. There shall be a mechanism for review of decisions under this provision, which

may be discretionary rather than mandatory.

9. The sentencing commission shall promulgate and periodically amend sentencing

guidelines, consistent with Article 6B of the Code, to be used by the judicial panel

or other judicial decisionmaker when considering applications under this provision.

10. The legislature should instruct the sentencing commission to recommend

procedures for the retroactive application of this provision to prisoners who were

sentenced before its effective date, and should authorize retroactivity procedures in

light of the commission’s advice.

Proposed Final Draft of Model Penal Code: Sentencing § 305.6 (approved at 2017 Annual Mtg.).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.