Op-Ed: Why Is NJ Sticking With A Broken Sentencing System?

By: Joseph Krakora (NJ Spotlight)

New Jersey’s sentencing laws are broken and badly in need of reform. This is a function of the “three-strikes” and mandatory minimum sentences eliminating and restricting parole that were enacted in the 1980s and 1990s during the war on drugs and crime.

Former Gov. Phil Murphy’s clemency initiative, in the last 18 months of his second term, highlighted how these laws resulted in draconian sentences that bear no resemblance to the purposes for which we incarcerate individuals convicted of crimes.

It underscored the extent to which we imprison people for decades, into their 50s, 60s and 70s, at taxpayer expense, with no real purpose to be served by their continued confinement. One of them is Samuel Ryan.Never eligible

In 1997, at the age of 23, Sam committed two armed robberies within three weeks: a Wawa in Vineland and a gas station in Bridgeton. He netted $343, food stamps and cigarettes.

His previous record consisted of a robbery that he committed when he was only 16. Unfortunately, he was prosecuted as an adult for that offense notwithstanding his age and, therefore, he had a prior adult conviction when he was sentenced for the Wawa and gas stations robberies. As a result, under NJ’s draconian Three Strikes Law, he was sentenced to a mandatory term of life without the possibility of parole.

Sam is 52, having served more than 30 of his years in prison. Had he pleaded guilty he would have served 15 years and then been eligible for parole and likely released. Having exercised his right to trial, though, he will never be eligible for parole, in which the remainder of a sentence involves supervised release.

He has no incentive to do so, but he has made the most of his prison experience.

Sam has participated in rehabilitative programs, taken accountability for his actions and maintained employment throughout his incarceration. He mentors younger inmates so that they don’t make the same mistakes he made. Correction officers consider him to be reliable and trustworthy. He has an impeccable prison record.

He has been severely punished for his crimes. He has been rehabilitated. And there is no deterrent value to his continued imprisonment.

There is no risk that he will re-offend, given his prison record and what we know about the aging-out curve for individuals who commit crimes at a young age. He has a family support system waiting for him. His continued imprisonment will cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars, especially if he lives into his 70s and 80s and needs medical treatment.

His case exemplifies why laws eliminating or limiting parole are counterproductive. They result in the unnecessary and costly warehousing of aging inmates who pose no risk to community safety.No Early Release Act

New Jersey has 2,695 inmates over 50 years old, according to 2026 data. Of those, 1,057 are over 60. Although the Department of Corrections doesn’t maintain such figures, national data suggest that those who are 50-59 are serving an average 15 years, and those over 60 are serving an average 20 years.

Key to this length of time is New Jersey’s No Early Release Act, in effect since 1997.

Prior to that legislation, even those with violent offenses generally could be eligible for parole after serving one-third of their sentences. No Early Release raised the threshold to 85% of time served. The best estimate based on 29 years of admissions and release data is that the number of individuals sentenced pursuant to NERA is approximately 35,000.

Obviously, this has contributed to the increase in older inmates. It means that those over 50 likely have substantial time yet to serve. It also means reduced incentive for individuals to engage in good behavior and take advantage of rehabilitative and educational opportunities in prison: Nothing they can do will knock time from their release date.

Clearly, reform is needed. The legislature should repeal NERA and other statutes that create lengthy sentences without eligibility for parole. This is not as radical as it might at first sound.

Prior to 1997, these laws did not exist. Individuals were appropriately punished for their crimes. In this context, it is important to note that eligibility for parole does not necessarily equate to releasing inmates. The state Parole Board can determine release on a case-by-case basis.

Finally, it is imperative that the Legislature pass a rehabilitative release statute. The state Criminal Sentencing and Disposition Commission proposed that in 2019 in its annual report. Inmates who have served a certain amount of time, reached a certain age and demonstrated rehabilitation could ask a judge to reduce their sentences.

That proposal was endorsed unanimously by the Commission, including prosecutors and corrections and parole professionals.

Rehabilitative release would incentivize inmates who otherwise have no hope to demonstrate their worthiness. And it would save millions of taxpayer dollars. Rehabilitative release is a common-sense approach that does not compromise public safety.

I urge the Legislature to act.

This story was originally published by NJ Spotlight News through the NJ News Commons.