A growing body of criminological research is challenging the long-standing assumption that increasing prison sentences for people with prior convictions makes communities safer. An article by The Sentencing Project cites evidence suggesting that the common practice of enhancing prison terms based on criminal history does not improve public safety and disproportionately harms people of color.
According to the article, there is evidence to suggest that the common practice of increasing prison sentences for those with prior convictions does not benefit public safety. Authors Nazgol Ghandnoosh, Bobby Boxerman and Celeste Barry also acknowledge that prolonging sentences based on criminal records disproportionately impacts people of color.
Since the War on Drugs initiative in the 1980s, several new federal policies have been used as weapons to target people of color, according to Nkechi Taifa with the Brennan Center for Justice. Prison populations increased drastically, and the U.S. prison population rose higher than that of any other country in the world.
Taifa explains that “the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse Act established mandatory minimum sentencing schemes, including the infamous 100-to-1 ratio between crack and powder cocaine sentences,” raising prison populations beyond what they could handle. This sparked the mass incarceration crisis, and these mandatory minimum sentencing laws continue to disproportionately impact the Black community and other marginalized groups.
The article cites, “The practice of relying on criminal records to prolong sentences of this duration merits closer review given criminological evidence that criminal careers typically end within approximately 10 years and recidivism rates fall measurably after about a decade of imprisonment.” The practice of higher sentencing based on criminal records also has limited public safety benefits and substantial harm to both the incarcerated individual and their communities.
Additionally, the authors state that sentencing based on criminal history disproportionately affects the sentences of African Americans. African American criminal records are approximately 26% higher than those of white Americans, making criminal records a more significant factor in sentencing outcomes for them. As a result, “Among people with sentences of 10 years or longer, African Americans averaged 31 years and seven months, while white individuals were sentenced to an average of 26 years and four months.”
The article also notes that the recommended increase in sentencing based on prior records varies by state policy. For example, the authors report that Pennsylvania suggests an increase of 2 years and 10 months based on a prior record, while Maryland recommends an increase of 11 years and 7 months. Sentencing guidelines also vary significantly by state for first-time offenders, resulting in disproportionate sentencing for the same crimes across the country.
The authors report that steps have been taken to address this disproportionate sentencing. For example, “In 2025, the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission agreed to scale back the impact of criminal records, including eliminating consideration of most juvenile adjudications, from its sentencing guidelines.” Other states such as Washington and Pennsylvania have scaled back sentencing increases due to prior convictions, but these new policies do not benefit those who are already incarcerated.
The Sentencing Project has advocated for changes in sentencing law, including eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing policies. Based on scientific evidence regarding sentencing laws and public safety, the article reports that the project proposes that “for sentences that are 10 years or longer, criminal records should account for no more than 10% of sentence lengths.”
The use of mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines is a significant contributor to why the United States has a larger prison population than the rest of the world. According to the article, “Recent research has shown that as the country nears record-low crime rates, prison populations remain high in part because those entering prisons are increasingly likely to have criminal records, which both increases the likelihood of imprisonment for their conviction, and increases the length of their sentence.” The authors also reference Oxford criminology professor Julian Roberts, who argues that criminal records have a greater impact on sentencing in the United States than in most other Western countries.
The article states that these sentencing policies do not bring the intended results or achieve their stated goals. In many cases, “broad use of prior records in this way lengthens the sentences of many people with a low risk of future offending, greatly increasing incarceration rates with little benefit to public safety.” Additionally, research suggests that the severity of punishment is much less effective as a deterrent than the certainty of punishment itself. Therefore, the article concludes that there is minimal evidence to suggest that longer sentences increase deterrence.
The article further argues that increasing sentences based on criminal history may violate constitutional principles. The authors note that while retributivism should be considered in sentencing, “sentencing experts caution that retributivist justifications for greatly increasing punishment on the basis of a criminal record can be unconstitutional and overly punitive,” and that it should play a minimal role in determining punishment.
Finally, the article states that the practice of using criminal history to determine sentencing increases racial disparities. According to research conducted by UC Irvine professor Ojmarrh Mitchell, “stricter adherence to sentencing guidelines in Florida would have hampered its recent decarceration and increased racial disparities in its prisons.” The authors argue that this disparity stems from entrenched racism in past legal practices, including overpolicing communities of color and biases in trial proceedings. This history of discriminatory policing makes people of color more susceptible to harsher sentencing in the present day.
The data reflected in the article calls into question the validity of these sentencing practices as tools for keeping communities safe. The Sentencing Project’s proposal is designed to significantly reduce prison populations by lowering prison sentences, which, according to the evidence cited, would come at no cost to public safety.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
