When Alameda voters head to the polls for the primary election this June to elect a District Attorney, they’ll be choosing whether to restore a program that saved California tens of millions of dollars annually. Prosecutor-initiated resentencing allowed district attorneys to recommend sentence reductions for low-risk, elderly prisoners who no longer posed a threat—redirecting those resources toward victim services and crime prevention.
Two elected DAs with very different philosophies used this power successfully to achieve low recidivism and massive cost savings. Then, DA Ursula Jones Dickson—appointed by the Board of Supervisors after DA Pamela Price’s recall—changed course on the efforts immediately after taking office. As the primary approaches, voters must demand that candidates commit to reinstating this evidence-based initiative.
The results of prosecutor-initiated resentencing speak for themselves. After nearly two decades behind bars, Brian (whose name has been changed to protect his privacy) walked out of prison in November 2024 with $200 and a pair of shorts. Within weeks, he had secured employment with CalTrans and enrolled in Sacramento State’s Reintegration Academy. Today, he’s building the life he never had—and proving that resentencing works.
Brian is one of 165 people whose sentences were recommended for resentencing by Alameda County District Attorneys between 2020 and 2025. I helped evaluate many of these cases while contracting with the DA’s office, and my recently published report, Measuring the Impact of Prosecutor-Initiated Resentencing in Alameda County, reveals the scale of this success: the program traded 2,792 years of incarceration for real public safety, while saving the state up to $287 million. The individuals resentenced served an average of nearly 22 years, and two-thirds were over age 50—a demographic with extraordinarily low recidivism rates.
Resentencing isn’t a progressive prosecutor phenomenon. Former DA Nancy O’Malley, a traditional prosecutor, initiated this work in 2020 and resentenced 72 individuals; DA Pamela Price expanded it with a dedicated unit, resentencing 93 more. While judges maintain final authority and not every recommendation results in immediate release, both administrations recognized that some sentences no longer serve justice. National polling confirms voters want what prosecutor-initiated resentencing delivers: accountability paired with compassion, not endless warehousing of people who no longer pose a threat.
Meaningful accountability starts with hearing from those most affected by crime. These cases involve real harm and real victims–which is why California law mandates victim notification and participation in resentencing proceedings. Many victims participated in hearings with varying views. DA Price’s office provided restorative justice resources through organizations like Mend Collaborative. For Ralph (name also changed), now a peer case manager, facing his victim during a hearing forced him to confront the pain he caused in a way decades behind bars hadn’t. This is what accountability looks like when coupled with redemption: individuals confronting their harm, victims having their voices heard, taxpayers saving millions, and communities gaining productive members.
DA Dickson’s policy shift has real consequences. She began her tenure withdrawing pending recommendations—including in death penalty cases where federal courts found prosecutorial misconduct. This reversal contradicts a federal judge’s order to address the systematic exclusion of Jewish and African American jurors from death penalty trials. Withdrawing pending recommendations abandons a data-driven approach to public safety. Decades of rehabilitation, aging, and demonstrated accountability should inform sentencing decisions—not political winds.
Beyond cost savings and public safety, resentencing transforms prison culture itself. Ralph observed that people are engaging more seriously with rehabilitation programs “because they now recognize that transformation offers a genuine possibility of going home.” Dismantling this incentive structure makes prisons less safe and less effective.
As Alameda County heads toward its next DA election, candidates must answer a straightforward question: Will you commit to reinstating a robust Resentencing Unit with the resources to evaluate cases thoroughly, engage victims meaningfully, and make decisions based on data and outcomes?
The stakes are too high for political posturing. Two DA administrations proved this works: it saves the state money, improves public safety, provides restoration opportunities for survivors, and corrects unjust sentences. Voters should demand that candidates show commitment to justice—not just rhetoric. Brian and Ralph’s stories aren’t exceptional—they represent what the data consistently reveals. Alameda County pioneered this work before it became statewide policy. We shouldn’t abandon it now.
Andrea Crider is a Staff Attorney and Lecturer at UC Berkeley School of Law’s Criminal Law & Justice Center, where they contracted with the Alameda County District Attorney’s office from 2024-2025 to assist with prosecutor-initiated resentencing evaluations.
