Ending mass incarceration in the United States requires pulling several policy levers at the same time: shortening sentences, shrinking pretrial jail populations, rethinking drug enforcement, building real alternatives to prison, fixing parole and probation systems that recycle people back behind bars, and dismantling the collateral consequences that make reentry nearly impossible. Nearly two million people sit in American prisons and jails on any given day, and no single reform gets that number down on its own. The reforms below are the ones with evidence behind them, and most are already in use somewhere in the country.
Shorten Sentences at the Front End
Sentencing law is where the prison population grew, and it is where reductions have to start. Mandatory minimums force judges to impose a specific prison term regardless of circumstances. For federal drug offenses, the floors run from five years to life depending on drug type and quantity, and a first-time offender can face a ten-year minimum that doubles to twenty if someone died as a result.1United States Sentencing Commission. United States Sentencing Commission The judge may believe a shorter sentence would better serve justice and public safety, but the statute ties their hands.
Federal law already contains one escape hatch. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), the “safety valve” lets a judge sentence below the mandatory minimum for certain drug-trafficking offenses when the defendant meets five criteria: limited criminal history, no violence or weapons, no deaths or serious injuries resulting from the offense, no leadership role, and truthful cooperation with the government.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3553 – Imposition of a Sentence Broadening those criteria would let judges tailor more sentences to individual cases.
The First Step Act of 2018 moved in the same direction. It reduced the federal three-strikes penalty from mandatory life to twenty-five years, cut the previous twenty-year mandatory minimum for a second offense to fifteen years, and broadened the three-strikes trigger beyond drug felonies to include serious violent felonies, targeting the enhancement more narrowly at genuinely dangerous repeat offenders.3United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Revised First Step Act of 2018 (S.3649)
Making Changes Retroactive
Changing future sentences does nothing for the thousands of people already serving time under rules the system has since abandoned. When the U.S. Sentencing Commission lowers a guideline, individuals sentenced under the old range can file a motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) asking the court to reduce their sentence to match the new range.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3582 – Imposition of a Sentence of Imprisonment The court weighs the reduction against the Commission’s policy statements and the original sentencing factors. This mechanism has already facilitated the release of thousands of people sentenced during the peak of maximum-penalty enforcement.
Rein In Prosecutorial Discretion
Prosecutors arguably control incarceration more than any other actor in the system. They decide whether to file charges, which charges to bring, and what plea to offer. An estimated 90 to 95 percent of criminal cases at both the federal and state level resolve through plea bargains rather than trial.5Bureau of Justice Assistance. Plea and Charge Bargaining Research Summary Prosecutors effectively set the sentence for the overwhelming majority of people who enter the system, and research presenting hundreds of prosecutors with the exact same case has found some dismissing it outright while others sought months or years of incarceration.
Reforms here are harder to legislate because the discretion is baked into the role. Some jurisdictions have adopted internal office policies that limit charge stacking, restrict the use of sentencing enhancements as plea leverage, and require supervisory approval before pursuing the most severe charges. Addressing racial disparities in incarceration depends on getting these discretion points right: Black Americans make up roughly 13 percent of the U.S. population but 38.4 percent of the federal prison population,6Federal Bureau of Prisons. BOP Statistics: Inmate Race and reforms that look race-neutral on paper can still produce skewed results if they ignore how discretion gets exercised.
Shrink the Pretrial Jail Population
About 70 percent of people in local jails have not been convicted of anything. They are awaiting trial, and most are there because they cannot afford to post bail. At midyear 2024, local jails held approximately 657,500 people in custody.7Bureau of Justice Statistics. Jails Report Series: 2024 Preliminary Data Release Days or weeks in jail can cost someone their job, their housing, and their custody arrangements, creating instability that makes future involvement in the system more likely.
Bail reform shifts the question from how much money a defendant has to whether they pose a genuine safety or flight risk. Under reformed systems, prosecutors must present evidence of danger or non-appearance before detention is imposed, and courts rely on structured assessments weighing factors like prior court appearances and community ties instead of a dollar figure. Conditions such as regular check-ins or electronic monitoring can replace physical custody for defendants who need supervision but not a cell.
Change How the System Handles Drugs
Drug offenses remain one of the largest pipelines into incarceration, and changing how the system handles them is one of the fastest ways to reduce prison and jail populations. The work falls into three categories: reclassifying charges, decriminalizing substances, and clearing records.
Reclassify Simple Possession
A growing number of states have reclassified simple drug possession from a felony to a misdemeanor. The practical difference is enormous. A felony conviction typically carries years in state prison and a lifetime of collateral consequences affecting employment, housing, and voting; a misdemeanor generally caps incarceration at less than one year in a local jail.8National Conference of State Legislatures. Misdemeanor Sentencing Trends
At the federal level, marijuana rescheduling has moved in stages. As of April 2026, the Department of Justice placed FDA-approved products containing marijuana and state-licensed medical marijuana products into Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. Recreational cannabis and unlicensed marijuana remain Schedule I.
Decriminalize Possession
When a state decriminalizes a substance, possession becomes a civil infraction rather than a criminal offense. Instead of arrest, booking, and a criminal record, the person receives a citation and a fine. Among states that have decriminalized marijuana possession, civil fines typically range from around $100 to $1,000 depending on the state and amount.9National Conference of State Legislatures. Cannabis Overview Decriminalization removes the pathway from possession to incarceration for thousands of people each year and frees law enforcement time for more serious work.
Clear Old Records
Reclassifying or decriminalizing a substance going forward does nothing for people already carrying a conviction for conduct that is no longer criminal. Expungement laws allow courts to seal or remove those convictions from a person’s public record, eliminating barriers to housing, jobs, and education. “Clean slate” laws in a growing number of states automate the process, sealing eligible records without requiring the individual to hire a lawyer and file a petition. For those who do need to file, court fees for expungement petitions typically range from around $50 to several hundred dollars depending on jurisdiction.
Build Real Alternatives to Prison
Reducing incarceration isn’t only about shortening sentences. For many offenses driven by addiction, mental illness, or poverty, prison was never the right response in the first place.
Drug Courts
Drug courts divert people charged with drug-related offenses into intensive treatment supervised by a judge, with regular drug testing and graduated consequences for non-compliance. Participants who complete the program typically have their charges reduced or dismissed. Research by the National Institute of Justice found that drug court participation reduces recidivism by 17 to 26 percent compared to traditional prosecution.10National Institute of Justice. Do Drug Courts Work? Findings From Drug Court Research The model works because it addresses the underlying addiction rather than cycling someone through jail stays that do nothing to treat it.
Mental Health Courts
Mental health courts route people with serious mental illness into treatment rather than jail, connecting participants with medication management, counseling, and housing support. Completion of a diversion program has been shown to reduce both recidivism and total days incarcerated. For someone whose criminal behavior is directly linked to untreated mental illness, the traditional cycle of arrest, short jail stay, release, and re-arrest achieves nothing.
Restorative Justice
Restorative justice programs bring together the person who caused harm and the person who experienced it, with a trained facilitator. The goal is accountability, repair, and an agreement about how to make things right rather than punishment imposed from above. A recent meta-analysis found that participants had roughly 17 percent lower odds of reoffending compared to control groups processed through the conventional system. The approach tends to work best for property crimes, lower-level violent offenses, and cases involving young people.
Fix Parole and Probation
The back end of the system sends an alarming number of people back to prison for reasons unrelated to new crimes. Supervision violations account for over 42 percent of prison admissions nationwide. Many are technical: a missed meeting with a probation officer, a failed drug test, crossing a county line without permission. States spend billions each year incarcerating people for these non-criminal infractions.
Graduated sanctions replace revocation as the default response. A missed appointment might trigger a warning or additional check-ins rather than a trip back to prison. A failed drug test might lead to a referral to treatment. The principle is proportionality: the response matches the severity of the violation.
Earned Time Credits
The First Step Act created a federal earned time credit system that rewards participation in programming. Incarcerated individuals earn 10 days of credit toward early release for every 30-day period in which they participate in recommended rehabilitative programs or productive activities. Those assessed as minimum or low risk for reoffending earn an additional 5 days per 30-day period, for a potential total of 15 days per month.3United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Revised First Step Act of 2018 (S.3649) Someone with a five-year sentence who fully participates can shave years off their time, which creates a real incentive for self-improvement while reducing the overall population.
Presumptive Parole
Traditional parole systems place the burden on the incarcerated person to prove they deserve release. Presumptive parole flips the default: an individual is released at their earliest eligibility date unless the parole board identifies specific, documented reasons they remain a threat to public safety. Making release the default for people who have met behavioral standards lets boards focus their time on genuinely difficult cases rather than rubber-stamping denials.
Remove the Barriers to Reentry
Prison is supposed to be the punishment. In practice the punishment extends well past the sentence. A criminal record creates barriers to employment, housing, education, and civic participation that can last a lifetime. These collateral consequences drive recidivism by closing off the legal pathways to economic stability.
Employment
The federal Fair Chance to Compete for Jobs Act prohibits federal agencies from asking about criminal history before extending a conditional job offer.11U.S. Department of the Treasury. The Fair Chance to Compete Act Fact Sheet Exceptions exist for positions requiring security clearances, law enforcement roles, and jobs requiring access to classified information. Many states and cities have adopted similar “ban the box” laws covering private employers, with details varying significantly.
Housing
HUD’s Office of General Counsel has issued guidance stating that blanket bans on renting to anyone with a criminal record can violate the Fair Housing Act when they produce a disparate impact on a protected class. Housing providers must evaluate the nature and severity of the offense, how much time has passed, and evidence of rehabilitation. Denials based solely on an arrest that didn’t result in a conviction are also prohibited. Many landlords still screen out anyone with a record, and enforcement remains inconsistent.
Education
Federal financial aid eligibility used to be suspended for students convicted of drug offenses while receiving Title IV aid. The FAFSA Simplification Act eliminated that restriction, and the Department of Education removed the drug conviction question from the FAFSA beginning with the 2023-2024 award year.12U.S. Department of Education. Early Implementation of FAFSA Simplification Act Removal of Drug Conviction Requirements for Title IV Eligibility Students with drug convictions are now eligible for Pell Grants, federal loans, and work-study on the same terms as everyone else. Education during and after incarceration is one of the strongest predictors of successful reentry.
Firearm Rights
One barrier won’t lift with reentry reform alone. Under federal law, anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison faces a lifetime ban on possessing firearms or ammunition.13Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 922 – Unlawful Acts Some states allow possession after a waiting period, but the federal ban remains in effect regardless of state law. A person can be in full compliance with state law and still face federal felony charges for having a firearm at home.
Use Clemency and Compassionate Release
When legislation moves too slowly or existing law produces an unjust result in a particular case, executive clemency and compassionate release provide individual relief valves.
Pardons and Commutations
Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution grants the president broad authority to pardon individuals or commute their sentences.14Congress.gov. ArtII.S2.C1.3.1 Overview of Pardon Power A commutation reduces the length of a sentence without overturning the underlying conviction; a pardon forgives the offense entirely. Governors hold parallel powers under their state constitutions. The Office of the Pardon Attorney within the Department of Justice processes federal clemency petitions and advises the president on pardons, commutations, and remission of fines or restitution.15U.S. Department of Justice. Office of the Pardon Attorney Used at scale, clemency can correct systemic injustice faster than legislative reform, though it depends entirely on the priorities of whoever holds the executive office.
Compassionate Release
Federal law allows courts to reduce a prison sentence when “extraordinary and compelling reasons” justify it. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), either the Bureau of Prisons or the incarcerated individual can file a motion with the sentencing court.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 USC 3582 – Imposition of a Sentence of Imprisonment The statute defines “terminal illness” as a disease or condition with an end-of-life trajectory. A separate provision allows release for individuals who are at least 70 years old and have served at least 30 years, provided the Bureau of Prisons determines they are not a danger to the community. If the individual is too ill to file themselves, the statute now allows their attorney, partner, or family member to submit the request on their behalf.
Housing elderly and seriously ill prisoners costs roughly three times what it costs to house younger, healthier ones, and the people receiving compassionate release are among the least likely to reoffend.
The Cost Case for Doing This
The system costs at least $182 billion a year to operate when policing, courts, prisons, jails, and community supervision are counted together. That figure doesn’t capture the full damage; adding lost wages from incarcerated and formerly incarcerated workers, adverse health effects, and harm to families pushes estimates of the total societal burden to $1.2 trillion annually. Every dollar spent incarcerating someone who could be safely supervised in the community is a dollar unavailable for schools, mental health services, addiction treatment, and the other investments that actually prevent crime.
States that have cut their prison populations over the past decade have generally seen crime continue to decline. The question is no longer whether mass incarceration can be reduced without compromising safety. It’s why the reduction hasn’t happened faster.